P.K. Tripathy, J.
1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 125 of 1994 of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Berhampur. Her application to depute a Survey Knowing Commissioner being rejected by the trial Court, petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 18 of 1996, which is pending in the Court of 2nd Addl. District Judge, Berhampur. As stated by the petitioner, after the death of the original plaintiff, i.e., Sappa Simadri Patra, she was substituted in his place on her application which was allowed by the Court below on 10.3.1997. When the matter stood thus, on 30.4.1997 opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and one Sappa Prakash Rao described as son of Late S. Adinarayanan filed an application under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'the Code') for their addition in the revision as the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner Late Sappa Simadri Patro. That application was allowed by the 2nd Additional District judge, Berhampur, and as against that the petitioner has filed this civil revision.
2. It is the settled principle of law that the provision of Order 22 of the Code does not apply to a revision. If any person claims to be the legal representative of the deceased petitioner, the proper forum to move such application is the court where the suit or the appeal is pending. If at the stage of consideration of such application the trial or the appellate court finds that there is resistance to the prayer for substitution on the ground of locus-standi, i.e., as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of that deceased party, then such question shall be determined by the Court in accordance with Rule 5 of Order 22 of the Code. Any order passed by the Court ignoring the law cannot have the backing of law.
3. Notwithstanding the aforesaid legal position, this Court cannot go into that aspect involved in the case inasmuch as petitioner has challenged to the order passed by a revisional court exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code, Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted a note of submission and also argued regarding maintainability of the revision with advancement of the contention that the impugned order comes within the meaning of the term 'case decided'. In that respect he has cited some authorities. This Court finds no relevancy of that point as welt as the authorities inasmuch as in the cited decisions maintainability of the civil revision was not considered in that context. On the other hand maintainability of the civil revision comes to the forefront on the ground that whether the order of a revisional court can be interfered by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 115 pf the Code. In that context authorities are many but it is sufficient if reference is made to the case of Usharani Rout and Anr. v. Surendra Pradhan @ Rout, 1992 (I) OLR 488. Honourable Shri Justice A. Pasayat, J (as His Lordship then was) has propounded that :
'4. ... The object behind bifurcation seems to divide the work load between the District Judge and the High Court. There is classification of the cases into two mutually exclusive categories depending on the valuation of the suits out of which they arise. If the legislative intent was classification of two mutually exclusive classes and categories, the very object and purpose shall be frustrated if a second revision against the revisional order passed by the District Judge is permitted. The construction of a provision should be such as to advance the object of legislation and suppress the mischief sought to be cured by it. If a revision petition is permitted to the High Court against the revisional order of the District Court, a fundamental contradiction would be allowed to invade and destroy the division of revisional power between the High Court and the District Court. My analysis has concurrence of the authoritative view of the Supreme Court in Vishes Kumar's case (supra). Therefore, I decline to entertain the revision application:'
In view of the said ratio, this civil revision is not maintainable even with respect to an interlocutory order passed by a Court having concurrent jurisdiction. Thus the Civil Revision is dismissed. No cost.