Partab Dan and another vs Hariram and another

Nigam, J.C.

Hariram filed Suit No. 48 of 1947 against Partab Dan and three others claiming an injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly dispossessing him from certain fields situated in village Mahrun Khurd, Tehsil Kekri. During the pendency of the suit, Ganga Dan, defendant 3 died and his heirs were not brought on to the record within the time permitted by law. Thereupon it was urged before the learned Subordinate Judge that the suit had abated in toto and not only against the heirs of Ganga Dan. This contention was not accepted by the learned trial Judge and against his rejection of that contention, Partab Dan and Nathu Dan have come up in revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants.

The learned counsel for the applicants has referred me to -- Rani Dhandei Kuer Vs. Fatma Zuhra and Others, This ruling will, in my opinion, not apply to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel has also referred me to -- ''Ratan Lal v. Chhoga'', AIR 1950 Ajmer 43 (B). I agree that the doctrine of conflict of judgment should ordinarily be a safe guide in such matters. I am, however, of opinion that in the particular facts of the case the suit does not abate against the other defendants. The relief claimed is that of injunction and ordinarily it would be claimed only against persons obstructing the plaintiffs. Had there been some co-sharers who did not obstruct the plaintiff, he would not come forward to seek an injunction against them. I am, therefore, of opinion that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct and requires no amendment.

No other point has been urged before me.

This revision is, therefore, dismissed with costs.