The trial court erred by abating the suit without proper inquiry into legal representation, as abatement is procedural and not substantive, requiring adherence to the principles laid out under Order 22 Rule 5.

ORDER :

1. The applicants have preferred the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Durg (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Suit No. 65-A/2014, titled Kewalram & Others vs. Mohd. Shakil Khan & Others, whereby the trial Court held that the suit stood abated due to the death of plaintiff No. 1, Kewalram, on 24.12.2018 and on account of failure to take steps for substitution of his legal representatives despite directions issued vide order dated 19.11.2019.

2. Facts of the case, as projected by the applicants, in a nutshell, are that the plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 129-A/2014 before the competent Court seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of a property situated in Patwari Halka No. 2, Tehsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.), comprising part of Khasra Nos. 463/2 and 463/3, admeasuring 10,400 square feet (0.097 hectare), and identified as Plot Nos. 13, 15, and 16. The suit property was originally purchased through a registered sale deed dated 20.12.1962 by Late Idandas and plaintiff No. 1, Kewalram, from one Krishna Kumar Silhat. Following the purchase, the property was mutated and Rin Pustika was issued in the name of Late Idandas and plaintiff No. 1 under Khasra No. 463/34. The plaintiffs' genealogical lineage traces back to Late Gohimal, who had four sons, namely Tolumal, Idandas, Dayaldas, and Tikamdas. Dayaldas was the father of plaintiff No. 1, Kewalram. Tikamdas had three sons, Dilip Kumar (plaintiff No. 2), Kanahaiyya (plaintiff No. 3), and Lakshmandas. Lakshmandas, now deceased, was the husband of plaintiff No. 4 (Mamta Hinduja) and the father of plaintiffs No. 5 (Sanjay Kumar) and No. 6 (Vikki). It was alleged that to address discrepancies in the revenue records, particularly that the mutation only referred to Khasra No. 463/34 while the sale deed mentioned Khasra Nos. 463/2 and 463/3, late Lakshmandas handed over the original sale deed and Rin Pustika to defendant No. 3, who had close connections with revenue authorities. Subsequently, it was claimed that after the death of Idandas, who died issueless, defendants No. 1 and 3 fraudulently mutated the property solely in the name of Late Lakshmandas by misrepresenting him as the only legal heir of Idandas (as per Sanshodhan Panji No. 167 dated 17.04.1994). Further, a forged correction deed to the original sale deed was allegedly executed on 03.05.1994, and a forged power of attorney dated 29.11.1994 was created in favor of defendants No. 1 and 3. Using the purported forged power of attorney, defendants No. 1 and 3 executed a registered sale deed on 30.11.1994 in favor of defendant No. 2, who subsequently mutated the suit property in her name. When defendant No. 2 began construction on the property, the plaintiffs objected and initiated Revenue Case No. 62 B/121 for the year 2011–2012. The revenue authority directed the plaintiffs to seek redress from the competent civil Court, leading to the filing of the present civil suit. In the suit, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that they are the rightful owners in possession of the suit property. They also sought declarations that the power of attorney dated 29.11.1994 and the subsequent sale deed dated 30.11.1994 are illegal, forged, and void. The plaintiffs further requested that the mutation in the name of defendant No. 2 be declared invalid and that the defendants be restrained from disturbing the plaintiffs’ possession.

3. Defendants No. 1 and 2 appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement. They denied the allegations and asserted that plaintiff No. 1 was aware of all transactions. They claimed that defendant No. 2 had been in possession since 1994, and the suit was barred by limitation and filed only to harass. They also argued that proper Court fees had not been paid and prayed for dismissal of the suit. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No. 1, Kewalram,