ISRANI, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10. 11. 82 passed by the learned Munsif Bundi in Civil Suit No. 104/80 (159/78) whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/non-petitioners under sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act was dismissed.
(2.) NO one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners has pointed out that the non-petitioner No. 1 Ram Dayal has died on 15. 11. 1983 and non-petitioner No. 2 Dwarka Lal has died on 20. 3. 84. The death certificates of both the non-petitioners have also been produced by the learned counsel. He states that an application to this effect was filed on 11. 4. 86. However, this application is not on record. The non-petitioners had filed a suit under sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession of land, which was decreed in their favour by the trial court. Learned counsel contends that since no application for joining the legal representatives of non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 has been filed so far, the revision petition abates as the provision of Order 22 CPC does not apply to revision, which is a discretionary measure. Reliance has been placed on the case of Pandit Kanhaiya Lal vs. Mangalsingh (1) in which it was held as under:- "a litigant is expected to be diligent with the prosecution of his case. Remedy by way of revision being discretionary which is a party is not entitled to claim as a matter of right he should only apply to bring the representative of a deceased party on record within a reasonable time. What is reasonable time is a question of fact and depends on the facts of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as regards the degree of diligence to be required in such cases. Thus where the non-applicant died on 4th December, 1950 and application to bring him on record was made on 19th November, 1951 it was held that the delay was inordinate. The petitioner being negligent the High Court refused to exercise its discretion in his favour. " In Babulal vs. Mani Lal (2) a Full Bench of this court considered this matter and it was held that the provision of order 22 C. P. C. does not apply to the revisions as it is a discretionary remedy and the court should not exercise the same in favour of the party who is grossly negligent. In this case even till today no application for joining the legal representatives of deceased non-petitioners has been filed so far which shows that petitioner has grossly negligent. Therefore, the revision abated and is hereby dismissed. The stay order dated 28. 2. 83 shall also stand vacated. No order as to costs. Revision dismissed. .;