- (1.) RAM Janam Singh, J. Revisionist Harphool Singh has filed this revision against the order dated 30-3-99 passed by Additional SDO Hapur with the allegation that the substitution applica tion which was moved by the opposite-party was time-barred and there was no application for recalling the abatement order. The objection of the revisionist was not considered the impugned order was passed by the trial Court. Without specific request for recalling the abatement order by the opposite party the Court is bound to reject such application.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. The substitution application which was moved by the opposite- party before the trial Court was allowed by the learned trial Court on the ground that the delay in filing the substitution application is not deliberate. The intention of the opposite-party is clear which also gets support from affidavit filed by the opposite-party. If a substitution application has been filed it will be deemed that the request for setting aside the abatement order is implicit. I find no illegality or irregularity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. The present revision is accordingly based on very tech nical points which also get no support from the provisions of law. Revision has no force and is ac cordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;