1. - ln this revision the office has reported that non-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have not been served, the notice of respondent No. 2 has been received unserved for want of fresh address while the respondent No. 3 has been received with a report that he has expired. However, having gone through the relevant record and the controversy involved, in my view, it is not necessary to wait for the service of these non-petitioners.

2. By the impugned order the learned trial court has dismissed the petitioner's application filed under Order 22 Rule 4(4) seeking prayer to have the name of defendant No. 2 deleted. This application has been dismissed on the ground that the suit property is Hindu Undivided Family of defendants No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 along with the plaintiff, and therefore, all these persons are necessary parties and if any-one of them dies his legal representatives are necessary to be brought on record. With these finding the learned court below has held the suit to have abated to the extent of defendant No. 2.

3. Without going into the merits of the findings, in my view, when the plaintiff seeks to delete the name of defendant No. 2 by contending that on account of his deat