S.K. Keshote, J. - (1.) From the record of the revision petition No. 510/98 I find that defendant non-petitioner No. 2 has expired. His heirs and legal representatives have not been brought on record. He was the partner of the defendant non-petitioner No. 1 firm which is duly represented by the Advocate. Thus, non-bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of defendant non-petitioner No. 2 is inconsequential. That apart it is no more res integra the provisions of Order 22 of the CPC are not applicable to the revision petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC. Last but not least, the defendant non-petitioner No. 1 firm is there and the defendant non-petitioner No. 2 was only the partner thereof.
(2.) In these two revision petitions purely a legal question has been raised for consideration of this Court by the learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioners, therefore, they are taken up for hearing together and being decided by this common order
(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the revision petitions.;