Ignorance of the death of a defendant is not a sufficient cause for setting aside abatement unless there are good grounds for ignorance not attributable to negligence.

Tek Chand, J.

1. The question which has been referred to the Full Bench is--

"whether ignorance of the death of a defendant is a sufficient cause for setting aside the abatement when the application to bring the legal representatives of he deceased defendant on the record is made after the expiry of the period of limitation".

2. The facts and circumstances under which this question arose may be stated briefly. The plaintiffs who are 27 in number, had instituted a suit against 119 defendants besides the Union of India, who was defendant No. 120, claiming rendition of accounts in respect of income and profit etc. and also possession by way of partition of the property mentioned in the schedule attached to the plaint in respect of 108 1/2 shares out of 262. The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 to 119 (inclusive) were engaged in partnership business of pressing and bailing cotton and wool in the town of Fazilka, District Ferozepur, in the name and style of Om Press Company in the year 1938. The plaintiffs owned 108 1/2 shares out of a total of 262 shares in the concern. On 25th of April, 1938, a notice was received by the partners form the Registrar, Joint Stock Companies, pointing out that the partnership business could not be carried on unless their concern was got registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 . Consequent upon the notice, the partners met and dissolved partnership with effect from 4th of July, 1938, but at the same time they decided that with the assets of the dissolved partnership they should form a joint stock company. With this end in view, defendant No. 2 Shri Mukand Lal was entrusted with the work of preparing memorandum and articles of association and for taking steps for forming a limited liability Company. It was alleged that Shri Mukand Lal, without consulting the plaintiffs as to the memorandum can articles of association, got the Company registered in the name of Om Press Company Limited, Fazilka.

3. The plaintiffs felt dissatisfied with the terms of the articles and made an application to the High Court at Lahore seeking the removal of their names from the register of the members of the Company which was allowed, but the plaintiffs prayer that the Company should be directed to pay them back the price of their share in the assets of the Company was rejected. The plaintiffs then applied for the winding up of the Company but the High Court rejected their application on 28th of June, 1944. The plaintiffs then lodged the present suit which was filed in the Civil Court at Fazilka on 5th of February,, 1945.

4. The defendants, including the Company, resisted the plaintiffs suit on several grounds and the trial Court framed seven preliminary issues. Some of these issues were decided against the plaintiffs who were required by the Sub-Judge to amend their plaint. The defendants who were also aggrieved from the decision of the Sub-Judge on certain other preliminary issues, filed a revision against his order in the High Court at Lahore and further proceeding in the case were stayed. After the partition of the country, the revision petition of the defendants was dismissed by the High Court at Simla and Achhru Ram J. by his order dated 6th of October, 1948, sent back the case to the Sub-Judge, Fazilka, for disposal on merits.

5. When the revision was decided by Achhru Ram J., Bagha Ram defendant No. 57 had died on 21st of July, 1947, Prabh Dial defendant No. 55 had died on 8th of December,, 1947, and Harden Mal plaintiff No. 19 had died on 28th of July, 1947. At the time of the disposal of the petition of revision, no one knew of the deaths of the three persons named above.

6. The parties appeared before the trial Court on 18th of November, 1948, and the case was adjourned to 29th of November, 1948, in order to enable the plaintiffs to make an application under O.1, R. 8, Civil Procedure Code, and it was prayed that as there were numerous plaintiffs and defendants, plaintiffs No. 2, 3 and 10 might be al