( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 26-8-1999 passed in i. A. No. 822 of 1998 in O. S. No. 170 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil judge, Kadiri under which a petition filed on behalf of the defendants (petitioners herein) in the suit praying for dismissal of the suit as a whole as having abated on the ground that one of the plaintiffs died was dismissed.

( 3 ) THE facts in nutshell necessary for the purpose of this petition may be stated as follows:plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Evidently, the plaintiffs claim that they are in joint possession of the suit properties. The defendants set up a plea that they are the joint-owners of the property and disputed the claim of the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiff no. 2 died and no steps were taken for bringing legal representatives of plaintiff no. 2 on record. The trial Court had recorded on 4-12-97 that the suit in respect of plaintiff No. 2 has abated. Subsequently, a petition for setting aside the abatement and for bringing legal representatives of plaintiff No. 2 on record with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay was filed. That petition was dismissed.

( 4 ) IT is under these circumstances, the defendants made an application contending that considering the nature of the suit, abatement of the suit in respect of plaintiff no. 2 must entail the abatement of the entire suit and prayed for dismissal of the suit as having abated. This petition was dismissed by the learned Principal Junior civil Judge, Kadiri.

( 5 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants, sri M. V. Suresh, is that the suit being for perpetual injunction, abatement of the suit in respect of plaintiff No. 2 must necessarily mean abatement of the suit in respect of plaintiff No. 1 also. The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed the suit claiming. to be the co-owners of the suit land and sought relief of perpetual injunction and as such after the death of plaintiff No. 2, the right to sue survives in favour of plaintiff no. 1 and as such according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the trial Court rightly held that the suit as a whole cannot be dismissed as having abated.

( 6 ) THE question for consideration is: whether in the light of the above contentions, the suit shall be deemed to have abated in entirety?

( 7 ) THE relevant provisions applicable to the case are Order 22 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, which are extracted below:"1. No abatement by party s death, if right to sue survives: the death of a plaintiff or defendant shall not cause the suit to abate if the right to sue survives. 2. Procedure where one of several plaintiffs or defendants dies and right to sue survives: where there are more plaintiffs or defendants than one, and any of them dies, and where the right to sue survives to the surviving plaintiff of plaintiffs alone, or against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, the Court shall cause an entry to that effect to be made on the record, and the suit shall proceed at the instance of the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs, or against the surviving defendant or defendants. "

( 8 ) UNDER Order 22 Rule 1 of CPC, the suit shall not abate on the death of plaintiff or defendant if the right to sue survives. Rule 2 of Order 22 of CPC postulates that where there are more than one plaintiff or defendant, on the death of a plaintiff or a defendant if the right to sue survives to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone or against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, this fact shall be recorded and the suit shall proceed at the instance of the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs or against the surviving defendant or defenda