AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hemant Gupta, J.—The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 3.9.1993 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the application filed by the defendant that the suit stands abated, was declined.
Number of coowners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs continued to be owner and in possession of the land in dispute. It was pointed out that plaintiff No. 1 has died during the pendency of the suit, whereas plaintiff No. 2 has died a day prior to the filing of the suit and, therefore, the suit has abated.
It has been found by the learned trial Court that since the suit by one of the coowners in respect of declaration of title was maintainable, therefore, even if the legal representatives of all the coowners are not impleaded, it will not result into abatement of the suit.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the application to implead Legal Representatives of the defendants was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the revision against the said order has also been dismissed by this Court on 18.5.1992 and therefore, the suit has to be dismissed as abated. However, the said arguments are not sustainable in law. The question examined is whether one of the plaintiffs is competent to seek declaration sought for. Even if one of the plaintiffs is competent to seek the declaration sought for, the suit would require adjudication of the lis between the parties. Admittedly, the other coowners were competent to seek declaration.
Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.
Revision petition dismissed.