ORDER :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

1. Learned trial court dismissed the suit filed by the present petitioners as having abated. This judgment has been up-held by the learned first Appellate Court. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred instant petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

The parties hereinafter are referred to as they were before the learned trial court.

2. Facts

2(i). The petitioners filed a civil suit on 31.1.2002 against the respondents/defendants for declaration to the effect that:-

a. Land measuring 4 kanal 12 marlas, bearing khewat No. 414, khatauni Nos. 541 and 542, khasra Nos. 1334, 1339 as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1992-93, situate in village Bathu, Sub Tehsil Haroli, Tehsil and District Una has been coming in possession of the plaintiffs as owners to the extent of 20/30 shares and as tenants to the extent of 10/30 shares.

b. The plaintiffs have become owners of 10/30 shares by operation of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act.

c. The revenue entries of suit land in the name of defendants in the revenue record more particularly, in the jamabandi for the year 1992-93 as 'khud kasht' are wrong, illegal, null, void, ineffective and have no bearing upon the rights, title or interests of the plaintiffs.

d. Consequential relief to restrain the defendants from interfering in the plaintiffs' possession over the suit land was also prayed for.

2(ii). Defendant No. 6-Jagdish s/o. Basant Ram was proceeded ex-parte in the civil suit vide order dated 1.3.2002. However, on the next date (1.4.2002), power of attorney on behalf of defendants No. 6 and 7 was filed in the court by Shri P.C. Sharma, learned Advocate who prayed time to file written statement on behalf of defendants No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. The prayer was allowed and the matter was fixed for 15.5.2002. On the next date i.e. 15.5.2002 written statement on behalf of defendants No. 1 to 7 was not ready. Learned counsel appearing for these defendants including defendant No. 6 prayed for adjournment to file the written statement. The prayer was not opposed by learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the matter was fixed on 6.8.2002 for filing of written statement. Written statement was not ready even on 6.8.2002. Further time was granted to the defendants No. 1 to 7 to file the written statement The same was eventually filed on 20.9.2002. Some relevant orders mentioned above are extracted hereinafter:-

Deft. No. 4, 6, 8 and 9 served but not present. Hence, they are proceeded as ex parte. Now to come up for w.s. on 1.4.2002.

Written statement on behalf of defendants No. 8 and 9 is filed. Written statement on behalf of defendants No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 not ready. Adjournment is prayed which is granted. Now to come up on 15.5.2002 for written statement.

None for the defendants No. 8 and 9 despite the fact that they were personally present on the last date of hearing. Hence the case is ordered to be heard as ex parte against the defendants No. 8 and 9.

Written statement on behalf of defendants No. 1 to 7 not ready. Adjournment is prayed which is granted as not opposed by Ld. Csl. for the plaintiffs. Now to come up on 6.8.2002 for written statement."

2(iii). During pendency of the civil suit, defendant No. 6 died on 8.9.2009. On 12.8.2011, the plaintiffs moved an application under Order 22 Rule 4(4) of Code of Civ