A suit filed in representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 CPC does not abate upon the death of some parties, as remaining representatives continue to represent the entity.

JUDGMENT

1. The matter comes upon various applications filed by respondents and appellants.

2. Application (I.A. No. 1/2020) has been filed by respondents No.2, 4, 5 & 6 inter alia indicating that respondent No.1 - Bardi Chand had died on 11.01.2018 and respondent No.3 - Chand Mal had died on 25.10.2017 and as application was not filed for bringing on record their legal representatives, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as a whole.

3. Further submissions have been made that appellant No.4 -Smt. Sita Devi has died and her legal representatives have not been brought on record / no steps have been taken and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

4. Another application (I.A. No. 2/2020) has been filed by appellants seeking deletion of names of appellant No.4 and respondents No.1 & 3.

5. It is inter alia indicated that as legal representatives of appellant No.4 are already on record, her name may be deleted from the array of parties and as the suit was filed against the defendants / respondents in representative capacity i.e. as representatives of Hindu Chhipa Namdev Banshi Samaj, Chittorgarh and respondents No.1 & 3 have died, their names may be deleted from the array of parties.

6. Another application (I.A. No. 3/2020) has been filed by respondents No.2, 4, 5 & 6 inter alia indicating that as order dated 08.07.2020 passed by this Court, admitting the appeal has been passed against dead persons i.e. respondents No.1 & 3 who had died on 11.01.2018 & 25.10.2017, the order deserves to be recalled as the appeal had already abated on the date, the order was passed by the Court.

7. Reply to the application (I.A. No. 1/2020) has been filed inter alia indicating that as the suit was filed in representative capacity after complying with the requirements of Order I Rule 8 CPC, by death of respondents No.1 & 3, the appeal can't abate and for the same reason learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the names of respondents No.1 & 3 may be deleted.

8. Reply to the application (I.A. No. 3/2020) has also been filed reiterating the submissions that as the suit was filed in representative capacity, by death of respondents No.1 & 3, it cannot be said that the appeal has abated and, therefore, the application (I.A. No. 3/2020) deserves to be dismissed.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2, 4, 5 & 6 reiterated the submissions that irrespective of the fact that suit was filed under Order I Rule 8 CPC once the respondents No.1 & 3 have died and steps have not been taken, the appeal abates and, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed and in any case the order dated 08.07.2020 deserves to be recalled.

10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

11. A perusal of the cause title of the suit indicates that defendants Prithviraj, Bardi Chand, Ram Chandra, Mangi Lal and Chand Mal were impleaded as representatives of Hindu Chhipa Namdev Banshi Samaj, Chittorgarh, proceedings under Order I Rule 8 CPC were under taken by the trial court, which is reflected from the judgment dated 06.08.2005. In view thereof, it is apparent that the said respondents were impleaded as representatives of the Hindu Chhipa Namdev Banshi Samaj, Chittorgarh.

12. It is well settled that in case proceedings are initiated under Order I Rule 8 CPC in a suit of representative capacity by death of few of the parties either plaintiff or defendants, the suit does not abate as the other representatives against whom the proceedings have been initiated, are still on record and they continue to represent the entity. In view thereof, the submissions made indicating that the appeal had abated on account of death of respondents No.1 & 3 have no substance. The application (I.A. No. 1/2020) is, therefore, dismissed.

13. So far as application (I.A. No. 3/2020) is concerned, as the same is based on the submissions that the appeal had abated and it has been determined here-in-before that the