PREMANANDA S X VERENCAR Vs. VILAS NAKUL BALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point raised in this Revision Application stems from the desire to indulge in technicalities.

(2.) THE plaintiff, who is the petitioner before the Court, filed a suit for certain reliefs against the defendant who filed a counter-claim along with the Written Statement. The plaintiff No. 1 died. The other plaintiffs brought the heirs of the plaintiff No. 1 on record. Evidently, the plaintiff No. 1 in the suit was one of the defendants in the counter-claim of the defendant. It appears that the defendant, or his advocate, or probably his clerk, was not sufficiently quick-footed for the task of bringing the heirs of the plaintiff No. 1, who was the defendant No. 1 in the counter-claim, on record and the counter-claim was slept over.

(3.) IN these circumstances, the plaintiff moved the Court for dismissal of the counter-claim on the ground that the same had abated. The trial Court examined the position, found that the counter-claim had abated because, admittedly, the heirs of the defendant No. 1 were not brought on record but decided not to ignore the requirements of justice. In its inherent jurisdiction, therefore, it set aside the abatement and ordered that the heirs of the plaintiff No. 1 who were already on record in the plaintiffs suit should be shown as the heirs of the deceased defendant No. 1 in the counter-claim, and the suit and the counter-claim were ordered to proceed for trail. The present Revision Application is filed by the plaintiff in the suit against the said order.