- (1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.08.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Mahendergarh whereby, the application for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased-plaintiffs, Bishambar, Kishori Lal, Mangal Ram and Satnarain, plaintiffs no. 1, 3, 5 and 7 respectively was dismissed and the case was adjourned for plaintiffs' evidence by holding that the death of one of the plaintiffs did not make the suit abate and there was a right to sue which survives. The present revision petition has been filed by legal representatives of the said deceased-plaintiffs.
(2.) A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession as co-sharers of the agricultural land measuring 16 kanals and 6 marlas. The said suit was instituted on 03.01.2008. The plaintiffs no. 1, 3, 5 and 7 expired in the years 2010 and 2013 and resultantly, the application dated 08.07.2013 for impleading the legal heirs was filed. The said application was opposed by the defendants on the ground that the limitation was only 90 days and the suit had to abate. Resultantly, the said impugned order has been passed whereby, the application to implead them has been dismissed but the suit regarding the other plaintiffs was to proceed. The Trial Court relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Bibijan and others vs. Murlidhar and others, 1995 2 RRR 354 and Lal Chand vs. Paras Ram (D) by L.Rs. and others, 2000 4 JT 408 to pass the impugned order while dismissing the application.
(3.) The said view is patently not sustainable in view of the fact that there has been an amendment by this Court vide notification dated 21.02.1992 which has taken w.e.f. 04.02.1992 wherein, it was provided that where the legal heirs of the deceased are not brought on record within the prescribed period, the suit shall not abate for the said reason under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. The said fact was noticed by this Court in Amro vs. Parbati, 2000 4 RCR(Civ) 671; Kali Ram vs. Mangat Rai, 2001 3 LJR 435 and in Lal Chand and others vs. Raghu Nath and others, 2010 1 RCR(Civ) 149 and this Court held that there is no limitation for impleading the legal heirs. The relevant observations in Lal Chand's case read thus:- "7. As per the amendment, where one of two or more plaintiffs dies and right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application in that behalf, shall cause the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. The amendment further speaks that even if no application is filed within time, then the suit shall not abate against the deceased plaintiff and the judgment could be pronounced notwithstanding his death which shall have the same effect as if it has been pronounced before the death took place, and the contract between deceased and the pleader in that event shall continue to subsist.";