ORDER :

Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J.

There is common question involved in these two civil revisions, therefore, both are being decided by this common order.

2. These civil revisions have been preferred by one of the plaintiffs/ applicant challenging the identical orders dated 30-6-2021 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in RCS No. 527-A/2008 and 460-A/2008, whereby plaintiffs’ applications under Order 7, Rule 11, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE have been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff submits that originally the suit was filed by plaintiff- Mazid Beg, in which written statement(s) was/were filed by the defendants and one of the defendants namely Omwati Goyal filed counter-claim also. During pendency of suit, plaintiff-Mazid Beg died, therefore, his legal representatives were substituted and under order of High Court, applicant-Arkey Investment Pvt. Ltd. was also impleaded as one of the plaintiffs in the plaint. Prior to substitution of Arkey Investment Pvt. Ltd., the defendant(s) filed his/their written statement(s) and defendant Omwati Goyal filed separate written statement as well as counter-claim and nobody else has filed the counter-claim.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff submits that learned trial Court is trying the suit and counter-claim jointly. It is also one of the fact on record that prior to death of original plaintiff-Mazid Beg, he had filed written statement to the counter-claim. By placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Jag Mohan Chawla and another vs. Dera Radha Swami Satsang and others , AIR 1996 SC 2222 (pr.5), learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant submits that because same procedure is applicable to the counter-claim, therefore, the defendant-Omwati Goyal also should have filed application for substitution of original plaintiff’s legal representatives as well as for impleadment of Arkey Investment Pvt. Ltd. in the counter-claim and in absence thereof the prayer made on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff for dismissal of the counter claim as abated, has wrongly been turned down by learned Court below in both the cases and submits that because the defendant did not take steps to substitute the legal representatives of plaintiff-Mazid Beg so also to implead the Arkey Investment Pvt. Ltd. in the counter-claim, therefore, the same has abated and deserves to be dismissed.

5. Learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Sanjana Sahni, Advocate by placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Organic Insulations vs. Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. , (2003) 9 SCC 187 , submits that after substitution of legal representatives in the plaint, the substitution in the counter-claim is not required to be done and the counter-claim would not abate as no prejudice would be caused to the LRs. of the deceased who would have full opportunity to present their defence because a suit and counter-claim are to be tried by the same Court in the same proceedings. With these contentions, he prays for dismissal of the civil revisions.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Undisputedly, after death of original plaintiff-Mazid Beg, his legal representatives were substituted in the plaint and under order of this Court, the name of applicant-Arkey Investment Pvt. Ltd. was also added as one of the plaintiffs. By way of application under Order 7, Rule 11, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , the plaintiffs have raised objection to the effect that because of non-substitution of legal representatives of plaintiff-Mazid Beg and non-impleadment of Arkey Investment Pvt. Ltd. in the counter-claim, the same has abated.

8. In the case of Organic Insulations vs.