The main legal point established is that the suit does not stand abated if the application for bringing on record legal representatives is filed within the prescribed period of limitation, and the right to sue survives for the legal representatives of the deceased litigants.

Ram Chand Gupta, J

1. Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in both the aforementioned revision petitions for setting aside order dated 4.8.2010 and subsequent order dated 14.12.2010 passed by learned trial Court in a suit filed by respondent-plaintiff-Pritam Singh (since deceased) and represented by respondents no.1 and 2 against present petitioner-defendant and Subhash Chander (since deceased), who is now represented by respondents no.3 to 7.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court.

3. Briefly stated, Pritam Singh filed a suit for possession of the shop in dispute and for recovery of 5,40,000/-as mesne profit for the use and occupation of the shop in dispute for three years preceding the institution of the suit, i.e., from 14.6.2002 to 1.6.2005 and for decree for mesne profit from the date of filing of the suit till delivery of the possession to the plaintiff.

4. During pendency of the suit Subhash Chander-defendant died on 30.11.2008. His legal representatives were already impleaded in Civil Revision No.4158 of 2008, pending before this Court, which was decided vide order dated 12.7.2010. Hence, learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 4.8.2010 also impleaded legal representatives of Subhash Chander deceased in the suit as well. It was also ordered that application for impleading legal representatives of Pritam Singh was already on the file and notice of the said application was given to the defendants.

5. Application for bringing on record legal representatives of deceased-Pritam Singh was contested by Narinder Kumar, one of the legal representatives of Subhash Chander by taking the plea that as plaintiff died on 17.11.2008 and as the application was not filed within the prescribed period of 90 days, the suit stand abated.

6. Learned trial Court vide order dated 14.12.2010 allowed the application filed by applicants Chanranjit Singh and Tarlochan Singh for impleading them as legal representatives of deceased-plaintiff while dismissing the objections of the present petitioner-defendant by observing that if the right to sue survives then the suit cannot be held to have abated, irrespective of the fact as to when the application is filed in view of the amendment of this Court in Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code').

7. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that amendments made by this Court in Order XXII of the Code stood repealed by Section 32(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, (Act No.46 of 1999) and Section 16(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act No.22 of 2002), and hence, it is contended that if the application for impleading legal representatives of deceased-plaintiff is not filed within stipulated period of 90 days from the death of the plaintiff, the suit automatically stand abated. It is further contended that if legal representatives of deceased-defendant are not brought on the record within stipulated period of 90 days, suit qua that defendant also stand abated automatically and that thereafter no application for bringing on record legal representatives of deceased-plaintiff or deceased-defendant can be allowed. It is further contended that even no application was filed for bringing on record legal representatives of deceased-defendant no.2-Subhash Chander and that legal representatives of Subhash Chander were brought on record only as his legal representatives were impleaded in the revision petition filed before this Court. He has also placed reliance upon Ganpat Giri v. IInd Additional District Judge, Balia and others, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 589, and Philomina Jose v. Federal Bank Ltd. and others (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 608.

8. On the other hand it has been contended by learned counsel