Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) The petitioners have in this writ petition challenged the order dated 10th July, 2007, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, vide which the Board, while rejecting their revision petition, upheld the order dated 14th June, 2006 passed by the Assistant Collector (Headquarters) Ajmer, in the revenue suit filed by the private respondents thereby taking the legal representatives of the original plaintiff on record.
(2.) Mr. Arun Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that the courts -below committed an error by permitting legal representatives of original plaintiff Usman to be brought on record, without any formal application under Order 22, R.3, CPC, having been filed in time before the Assistant Collector. The Court further committed legal error in holding that since legal representatives were allowed to be brought on record in the writ petition filed before this Court by the original plaintiff, they shall be treated to have been impleaded in the original suit. Moreover, the application was filed without being supported by Vakalatnama, therefore, the application was not maintainable. The revenue suit was thus, required to be dismissed as abated. The learned counsel further submitted that even if in the revenue suit, the provisions of Rules, 2, 4 and 9 of the Order 22 of CPC, are applicable. Merely because legal representatives were mentioned in the cause title of the writ petition, they cannot be treated as having been lawfully brought on record, and that could not save the suit from being dismissed as having abated. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has relied on the judgment of this Court in Smt. Bhani v/s. Mahaveer Prasad, 1997 DNJ (Raj.) 151, and in Baru Singh v/s. Babu Ram Sharma : AIR 1997 All 185, in Saraswati v/s. Tulsi Ram, AIR 1971 Del 110 and in Mohanlal Ramchandra v/s. Union of India : AIR 1972 Raj. 152.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. J.R. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the writ petition and argued that the Board of Revenue has taken a just and correct approach in holding that when legal representatives of the plaintiff had already been brought on record in the writ petition before this Court and in the review petition filed before the Board of Revenue itself, the mere fact that they were not formally brought on record in the revenue suit in time would not abate the suit. It was argued that the proceedings before the Board of Revenue and this Court were in continuation of original proceedings, therefore, if the legal representatives are brought on record at any stage of the proceedings, the suit cannot be dismissed as abated. In any case, such a hyper technical view of the matter cannot be taken. It was argued that mere non -filing of the Vakalatnama with the application would not make the application incompetent and provisions of Order 3, Rule 4, CPC, cannot be so construed as to make the application not maintainable. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Rudrappa v/s. Shivappa : 2005(1) ACJ 21 (S.C.) : 2005(1) CCC 627 (S.C.) : AIR 2004 SC 4346 and argued that in that case also, similar argument that separate prayer for setting aside the abatement of appeal and condonation of delay was not made while praying for the legal representatives to be brought on record and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed as abated, was rejected by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as being too technical. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.;