S.K MAL LODHA, J.—This revision application comes up for orders on the application submitted by the petitioners on December 19, 1977 for substituting the legal representatives of the non-petitioner No. 1/1 Nathulal.

2. It is necessary to recount a few facts.

3. The plaintiffs Khemraj and Vanraj instituted a suit against the petitioners and Amarchand, who is non-petitioner No. 3 in this revision, on June 16, 1966, for permanent injunction, inter alia, on the ground that the defendants were intending to dispossess them from a Bara (property in suit), described in para 1 of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, they were owners in possession of the "Bara. This suit was registered as a Civil Suit No. 86 of 1966. On the application of the plaintiffs, an ex-parte interlocutory injunction was granted. The defendants contested the suit. The ex-parte interlocutory injunction was also resisted. While the aforesaid suit was pending, the plaintiffs filed another suit for possession against the defendants on July 21, 1966 under sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It was stated by the plaintiffs that the defendants had dispossessed them, during the pendency of the earlier suit No. 86 of 1966. It was, therefore, prayed by the plaintiffs that they may be restored the possession of the Bara in suit. This suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 95 of 1966. On August 31, 1966, an application under sec. 10 C.P.C. for staying its proceedings was filed. The learned Munsif, Mavli, by his order dated October 10, 1966, ordered the consolidation of the two suits, mentioned above. It has been stated by the petitioners that despite the order of the consolidation, separate order-sheet continues to be recorded in Civil Suit No. 95 of 1966 and the file of Suit No. 86 of 1960 was tagged with the file of the later suit. After trial, the learned Munsif, Mavli decided both the suits by his judgment dated October 11, 1976. Learned Munsif, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for possession and ordered that the defendants should deliver possession of the property in suit within two months to the plaintiffs. Against that judgment and decree, defendants Nos. 2 to 5 have preferred this revision under sec. 115 C.P.C.

4. During the pendency of the suits, one of the plaintiffs Khemraj died and his legal representatives non-petitioner No. 1/1 Nathulal, non-petitioner No. 1/2 Roshan Lal and non-petitioner No. 1/3 Smt. Kanchandevi were brought on record. Smt. Kanchandevi also died and her legal representatives are 3/1 Manju Kumar, 3/2 Dinesh Kumar, 3/3 Madhu and 3/4 Devendra Kumar. During the pendency of this revision, Khemraj legal representative, non-petitioner No. 1/1 Nathulal died on March 1, 1977. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted an application on December 19, 1977, which was also signed by one of the petitioner Kailash Chandra, stating that the petitioner No. 1/1 Nathulal had died on March 1, 1977, that the petitioners came to know about his death on December

6. 1977 and and that in order to complete the array of the parties, Nathulals legal representatives, whose names are mentioned in para 2 of the application, may be brought on record and the cause title of the revision may be corrected. This application was supported by the affidavit of the petitioner Kailash Chandra. This application was opposed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs by filing a reply dated September 18, 1978. It was stated in the reply that the application for impleading the legal representatives of deceased-non-petitioner No. 1/1 Nathulal having been filed as late as more than nine months after the death of Nathulal, may be dismissed. It was also mentioned in the reply that the revision may be dismissed as deceased Nathulal was a necessary party in the revision. In support of the reply, an affidavit of the plaintiff Vanraj dated September 12, 1978 was filed, inter alia, controverting the fact that the petitioner came to know about the death of non-petitioner No. 1/1 Nathulal f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document