R.J.SINGH, J. - (1.) NAGAR Panchayat Tirwa has filed this revision against the judgment dated 12-3-1999 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division in a case under Section 229-B/209 of the UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The learned Counsel for the opposite-party has moved an application that the revision is preferred against a dead person. The learned Counsel has also stated in his application that this revision is filed against a person who was already dead and was substituted before the first appellate Court. Shyam Sundar Singh was substituted by his sons before the first appellate Court but the present revision has been filed against him only. During the pendency of the suit opposite-party Vijai Narain has also long back but no substitution application has been filed. On these two grounds the learned Counsel opposed the application of impleadment of the deceased Shyam Sundar's sons. He has cited AIR 1971 SC page 240 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the revisionist or the appellant have failed to show good ground for not impleading the legal heirs of the deceased. Shyam Sundar who was already substituted before the first appellate Court but no such good ground has been stated in the application for impleadment and cannot be allowed. Opposite-party No. 6 is also dead and no substitution application was filed. Hence on both these grounds the revision becomes infructous and is abated accordingly for want of substitution. Revision abated.;