HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This revision petition by Jaitdan defendant petitioner is directed against the order passed in appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner dated 17.6.65.
(2.) The facts are that one Chainsingh plaintiff filed a suit for demolition of a dhora constructed by Jaitdan petitioner across his field to prevent the rain -water running to the plaintiffs field. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The plaintiff Chainsingh sought to execute his decree and while the decree was being executed, the defendant petitioner filed an appeal before the revenue appellate authority against plaintiff Chainsingh. During the pendency of the appeal Chain Singh died and was survived by his 5 sons and one widow. Only two of his sons Purabdan and Bhurdan were impleaded as legal representative and the other 3 daughters and widow were not brought on record. The Revenue Appellate Authority after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that the entire appeal abated for failure to implead other legal representatives of the deceased respondent, Under O. 22, r. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is against this order that the first appeal was preferred and that subsequently converted into revision.
(3.) The counsel for the petitioners only contention was that it was not necessary to implead all the legal representatives of deceased Chainsingh and the two eldest sons of the deceased who were members of the deceased family sufficiently represented the estate of the deceased. In support he cited A.I.R. 1926 M.P. p. 79 as well as A.I R. 1965 S.C. p. 1049.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.