CHAKRAPANI LALTPRASAD Vs. BIHARI LAL MAHABIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the pendency of this revision, the opponent Biharilal died and within the period of limtation prescribed by law, no steps were taken to bring the legal representatives of the opponent on record. An application for bringing the legal representatives on record should be filed according to Article 176, Limitation Act, in three months. But the applicant filed it after about 16 months when the revision had abated.

(2.) THE Counsel for the applicant without praying for setting aside the order of abatement, has filed an application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased on record. It is being objected to by the other party and it is said that it is not possible to proceed with the case without the order of abatement being first set aside. But it is urged on behalf of applicant that Order 22 Rule 9 does not apply to revisions that have abated. In support of this, the learned Counsel for the applicant has cited - 'Mahomed Sadaat Ali Knan v. Administrator Corporation of city of Lahore, AIR 1949 Lah. 186 (A) and - Mamckam v. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1949 Mad 435 (B). With very great respect, I beg to differ.

(3.) I am of opinion that if any of the parties to a revision dies, the suit abates under Order 22 Code of Civil Procedure., and that steps should be taken for setting aside the order of abatement under Order 22 Rule 9 Code of Civil Procedure. My reason for applying Order 22 Rule 9 in revisions is that Section 141, Code of Civil Procedure. has been enacted for precisely such a purpose. It read thus: