Ajay Kumar Yog, J. - (1.) BY means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.11.1998 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bulandshahr and subsequently affirmed by the Revisional Court vide its order dated 14.5.1999 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition). The learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the ground that the observation of the Courts below that it was duty of the defendant to inform the Court about the death of Jaipal Singh is misconceived. After hearing Sri Yashrath, learned Counsel for contesting respondent No. 3, the present with petition is being decided finally at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE Suit No. 12/82 (Abdul Haque v. Jaipal Singh) is still pending before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bulandshahr, and the same has not been finally decided. The two courts below have concurrently held that suit did not abate. It is not a fit case for interference under Article 226, Constitution of India. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.;