RAM KISHAN Vs. SADHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present case has been reported by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala and Ferozepur Divisions Camp at Patiala, under Section 39(3) of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, read with Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 against the order dated 6.8.1984, passed by the District Collector, Sangrur, in a case of recovery of arrears of rent, as well as, the ejectment of the tenant, with his recommendation that "the order dated 23.2.1982, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sangrur, and the order dated 6.8.1984, of District Collector, Sangrur, be set aside and the case be remanded to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sangrur, for deciding the same on merits", as per his reference dated 22.5.1992.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are, that, the petitioners had filed a suit before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sangrur, against the respondent- Sadhu Singh son of Attar Singh, under Section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, for the recovery of the arrears of rent, amounting to Rs. 14195.75 in respect of the crops from Kharif 1972 to Rabi 1975, for the land comprised in Killa Nos. 34//1, 10, 35/15/2, 6, 15, 44//15/2, 16/1, 45//11/2, 20, 266, 450, situate at Village Sangheri, Tehsil and District Sangrur, as well as, for seeking ejectment of the tenant-Sadhu Singh, under Section 7 and 7-A of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 on 13.1.1976. On the pleadings of the parties, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sangrur, had framed 9 issues on 9.9.1976. During the pendency of the suit, one of the plaintiffs namely, Ganda Singh, had died on 4.7.1980 and an application was filed by his legal representatives on 30.10.1980 for impleading them as plaintiffs, in place of Ganda Singh deceased. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sangrur, had framed 3 issues regarding abatement of the suit on, 29.5.1981. Subsequently, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sangrur, vide his judgment and decree dated 23.2.1982, had dismissed the suit as abated, by placing his reliance on the authority contained in AIR 1952 Punjab 306. Aggrieved by this order, Mukand Singh etc., the landlords, had filed an appeal before the District Collector, Sangrur, which was rejected vide Collector's order dated 6.8.1984. In his order, the District Collector had concurred with AIR 1952 Punjab 306, relied upon by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sangrur, for dismissing the suit of the landlords, as abated. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner had filed the revision petition before the Commissioner (Appeals) Patiala and Ferozepur Divisions, Camp at Patiala, as a result of which, the present case has been reported.

(3.) FURTHER , the provisions of the substantive law, relevant to the facts of the present case, were very clear; and, the Revenue Courts below, should have been guided by these provisions. Under Order XXII Rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, it is clearly provided, that, where one of the plaintiffs dies, and where, within the time limited by law, no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate, so far as, the deceased plaintiff is concerned.... Apparently, the whole suit, on behalf of all the plaintiffs, could not be abated. This was the provision of law, before Rule 3(2) was substituted by a new Rule 3(2), as per the Notification by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 4.2.1992. Before substitution, Rule 3 read as follows :