ARJUN Vs. BALWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE material facts of this revision petition are that in a suit filed by one Manik. Arjun, Makhtul and Parmal against Balwant and others, the plain till Manik died on 20 -1 -1950. On 10 -2 -1950 Jiwanlal and Hargovind claiming themselves as sons of Manik applied for the substitution of their names on record in place of Manik. The Defendants took the objection that Jiwanlal and Hargovind were not the legal representatives of Manik. Thereupon the Court directed Jiwanlal and Hargovind to lead evidence to support their claim. They produced no evidence and the application for the substitution of their names was rejected. The other Plaintiffs Arjun, Makhtul and Parmal then applied to the Court that as the right to sue survived to them, the suit be proceeded with. The trial Court rejected this plea of Arjun, Makhtul and Parmal and held on 10 -9 -1951 that on the death of Manik, the right to sue did not survive to the other Plaintiffs and that as the application presented by Jiwanlal and Hargovind for bringing their names on record as the legal representatives of Manik was rejected on 5 -5 -1951 as they had failed to prove that they were the legal representatives, the Plaintiff's suit abated.

(2.) MR . Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, urged that the application presented on 5 -10 -1951 for setting aside the abatement was within time as the Plaintiffs' suit abated on 10 -9 -1951 when the Court passed an order that on Manik's death the right to sue did not survive to the remaining Plaintiffs and, therefore, the suit had abated. There is no force in this contention. It is clear from the wordings of Order 22, Rules 3 and 4 that a suit abates automatically, if no application to bring on the record the legal representatives of the deceased person is made within the time prescribed by law, and that no declaration to this effect is necessary. I do not think any authority is now needed to support the well settled principle that in order to work out abatement of a suit or appeal it is not necessary for the Court to pass any order.

(3.) FOR the above reasons I uphold the decision of learned District Judge and dismiss this revision petition, In the circumstances of the case there (sic) be no order as to costs of this application.