The joint mutation of property in the names of all the defendants led to the abatement of the suit, and the delay in filing the application for setting aside the abatement was not excused.

ORDER

1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellants for declaration of title and injunction and in the alternative for possession in respect of the lands belonging to one Kishan Singh who has died. The claim of the appellants is based on a will dated 14-3-1968 said to have been executed in their favour by Kishan Singh. The defendants in the suit were the natural heirs of Kishan Singh in whose favour mutation had been made in the Revenue records. During the pendency of the suit one of the defendants, Lal Singh, died on 13-4-1974. The appellants moved applications for setting aside the abatement and for bringing or record the legal representatives of Lal Singh in the trial court on 10-10-1974. The said applications were disposed of by the Sub-Judge, Zire by order dated 3-6-1976. The Sub-Judge found that the applications were filed after much delay but he held that there was no question of abatement of the proceedings in the case inasmuch as the suit could proceed as far as the other defendants were concerned.

2. A revision was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Lal Singh as well as by some other defendants in the High Court. The said revision was allowed by the High Court by the judgment under appeal. The High Court has held that after the death of Kishan Singh mutation had been made jointly in the names of all the defendants as heirs of Kishan Singh and that the said mutation order could not be split up and, therefore, the suit could not proceed as against the other defendants and should be treated to have abated as a whole. The High Court has also held that the delay in the filing of the application having not been explained, the application has to be held as beyond time.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the High Court the appellants have filed this appeal. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagga, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. The High Court has rightly held that the suit had abated as a whole since the mutation was made jointly in the names of all the defendants. The appeal, therefore, fails and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs.

4. In view of the dismissal of the appeal no orders are necessary on the applications for substitution.