KESHO PRASAD SINGH Vs. MOHOENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These civil revisions arise out of a batch of rent suits which have been dismissed by the learned Munsif of Buxar. They fall in two batches, the first batch consisting of C.R. 302 and 321 to 331 and the second batch consisting of C.R. 434, 435 and 451. A special point is raised with regard to C.R. 451 and it may be at once dealt with. The suit was dismissed in this case on 20 May 1931. The application in revision was filed on 10 August 1931. At the time this application was filed one of the tenants who was a defendant in the rent suit, namely Awdh Behari Ojha was not made a party to the application. An application was made in this Court on 20 November 1931, more than three months after the filing of the revision application to implead him as a party.

(2.) Later on when it appeared that he was dead, an attempt was made to substitute his heirs. The order-sheet definitely shows that the petitioner was not diligent even in making this application to substitute the heirs of Awdh Behari Ojha. Ultimately the heirs were allowed to be impleaded on payment of one gold mohur as costs to their guardian. Now the learned advocate for these minors appears and contends that this revision should not be entertained, and it appears to me that there is much substance in this contention. The suit was dismissed against Awdh Behari, one of the tenants and although it is not a matter of law, but it is a matter of uniform practice that civil revisions are entertained in this Court only if they are filed within three months of the date of the order sought to be revised.

(3.) When this revision was filed Awdh Behari was not made a party and no attempt was made to add him as a party until several months after the filing of this revision. In these circumstances if I were to restore the suit I would be not restoring it against the original parties but against some of the original parties and the heirs of one of the parties. It is unnecessary to repeat that originally the suit was never brought against the heirs of Awdh Behari who are now at this late stage sought to be introduced in the suit. If the suit is not brought against all the tenants interested in the holding, it cannot be maintained as a rent suit. In my opinion it will be unfair in the circumstances of the case to interfere with the order of dismissal passed by the learned Munsif in the suit out of which C.R. 451 arises. C.R. 451 is therefore dismissed but without costs.