JAMNA LAL Vs. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF KHEMRAJ NATHULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application comes up for orders on the application submitted by the petitioners on Dec. 19, 1977 for substituting the legal representatives of the non-petitioner No. 1/1 Nathu-lal.

(2.) It is necessary to recount a few facts,

(3.) The plaintiffs Khemraj and Vanraj instituted a suit against the petitioners and Amarchand, who is non-petitioner No. 3 in this revision, on June 16, 1966, for permanent injunction, inter alia, on the ground that the defendants were intending to dispossess them from a 'Bara' (property in suit), described in para 1 of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, they were owners in possession of the 'Bara.' This suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 86 of 1966. On the application of the plaintiffs, an ex parte interlocutory injunction was granted. The defendants contested the suit. The ex parte interlocutory injunction was also resisted. While the aforesaid suit was pending, the plaintiffs filed another suit for possession against the defendants on July 21, 1966 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It was stated by the plaintiffs that the defendants had dispossessed them, during the pendency of the earlier suit No. 86 of 1966. It was, therefore, prayed by the plaintiffs that they may be restored the possession of the 'Bara' in suit. This suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 95 of 1966. On Aug. 31, 1966, an application under Section 10 C. P. C. for staying its proceedings was filed. The learned Munsif, Mavli, by his order dated Oct. 10, 1966, ordered the consolidation of the two suits, mentioned above. It has been stated by the petitioners that despite the order of the consolidation, separate order-sheet continues to be recorded in Civil Suit No. 95 of 1966 and the file of Suit No. 85 of 1960 was tagged with the file of the later suit. After trial, the learned Munsif, Mavli decided both the suits by his judgment dated October 11, 1976. Learned Musiff, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for possession and ordered that the defendants should deliver possession of the property in suit within two months to the plaintiffs. Against that judgment and decree, defendants Nos. 2 to 5 have preferred this revision under Section 115 C. P. C.