POORAN AND ORS. Vs. SURYA LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether legal representative brought on record by substitution in the interlocutory proceedings (restoration proceedings), would enure for the benefit of entire proceeding including that of suit on restoration to its original number. This is revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the C.P.C.') filed by the applicants/plaintiffs questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 5.8.2010 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Surajpur, District Surguja in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 03/2008 whereby the lower appellate court has affirmed the order of trial Court dated 23.10.2008 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs as abated.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on 04.07.1979. The said suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 24.04.1991. Application under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. for restoration of the said civil suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 25.11.1991. In the meanwhile, original plaintiff jugra died on 09.02.2001 and the application for substitution was filed on 11.02.2001 and the application for substitution was allowed on 09.04.2002. The suit was restored to its original number on 24.01.2008.

(3.) AGAINST the order of dismissal of suit being abated, an appeal was filed by the plaintiff filed Order 43 Rule 1(k) of C.P.C. The first appellate Court dismissed the same and confirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court holding that the plaintiffs have not filed duly constituted application for substitution of legal representatives within time in accordance with law and, therefore, the suit is dismissed as abated. Against that, the instant revision has been filed.