(1.) THIS application has been filed by some of the plaintiffs and the legal representatives of one of the deceased plaintiffs, who was originally petitioner No. 1 in this court. It is directed against a composite order passed by the trial court by which it accepted the defendants' contention that plaintiff No. 5 named Lasai Munda had died long before, in March, 1964, leaving heirs who were alive, but who had not been brought on the record, and thereafter holding that the right to sue did not survive to the surviving plaintiffs and, therefore, the suit must fail.
(2.) A question of the maintainability of the civil revision was raised at the time of the admission of the civil revision and it was left to be decided at the time of the hearing. Sri Sarkar appearing for the plaintiffs has urged that the first part of the order of the trial court, holding that Lasai Munda had died in March, 1964, is a revisable order under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and he has urged that even if the second half of the order, holding that the suit by the remaining plaintiffs cannot proceed, is an appealable order, there is no bar in this Court entertaining this civil revision against that part of the order, as an appeal had to be filed in the court of appeal below. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and I do not think that this is a fit case for interference under the civil revtsional jurisdiction of this Court. So far as the first part of the impugned order is concerned, the parties were heard on merit and both parties examined their witnesses. Therefore, the conclusion regarding the death of Lasai Munda in March 1964 cannot possibly be interfered with in civil revision. With respect to the second half of the order. I do not see why this Court should interfere, even if this Court had power to do so, when no appeal had been filed in the court of appeal below. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge was passed on the 20th September, 1967 and this application was filed as late as on the 21st December, 1967. I do not see why indulgence should be made in favour of the plaintiffs petitioners and a civil revision should be heard against the second part of the order by which it has been held that the suit of the remaining plaintiffs had abated as a whole. The application, therefore, fails and it is dismissed. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order for costs.