TMI Blog1933 (5) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... death of his widow Mt. Dhani Kunwar the property devolved on Janeshwar Das and Badri Das, two brothers, in equal shares. The suit was directed inter alia to obtaining a declaration that one of the Jat defendants, Atma Ram who professed to have been adopted by Dhani Kunwar, was not at all adopted and that Janeshar Das and Badri Das were entitled to the property, and on the death of Janeshwar Das and Badri Das their widows were entitled to recover the property. The widow of Badri Das, Mt. Phulwanti, was made a defendant in the case. 2. The defendants to the suit were besides Atma Ram, his brother Abheynandan Lal. We have already stated that Mt. Phulwanti was made a defendant. A fourth person, Abdul Majid Khan, was made a party as a transfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was made a pro forma respondent. On 10th April 1933 Beni Prasad applied that he may be transposed to the array of the applicants as applicant No. 3. No order has yet been passed on this application and it is therefore before us for disposal. On behalf of the respondents a preliminary objection has been taken that the revision is not maintainable because the learned Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to hear the application of the Collector and as he applied his mind to the application and to the petitions of the applicants and Beni Prasad, the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is final and is not open to revision by this Court. It appears to us that so far as the petition of the two ladies, Jai Mala Kunwar and Chando Kunwar is conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is a belated one. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court need not be invoked by a party and it may be exercised by the High Court of its own accord. We accordingly direct that the application of Beni Prasad for being put into the array of the applicants be granted and that the application in revision be amended accordingly. 4. Now we come to the merits of the case. On behalf of Beni Prasad it had been contended that the suit instituted by the Collector on behalf of the two ladies Jai Mala Kunwar and Chando Kunwar was a suit of a representative character and it was necessary for the Court below to allow Beni Prasad to be implead-ed as a plaintiff in view of the fact that the Collector representing the widows was going to withdr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llector from being a representative suit. In this view of the case, Beni Prasad was materially interested in the result of the suit. 5. It has been held that where the plaintiff sues in a representative character it is not open to him to put an end to the litigation by merely withdrawing the suit. He may no doubt go out of the suit, but that does not put an end to the litigation where other people are interested in it and have a right to come in and continue the litigation. To mention some instances of such case : where a trustee brings a suit for the benefit of the beneficiaries and then wants to nullify the result of the litigation, it has been held that the beneficiaries may be properly brought on the record to continue the litigation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y may have been to continue the litigation, were unable to do so. In the circumstances, on principle, it must follow that the reversioner Beni Prasad should be permitted to continue the litigation. The result of disallowing Beni Prasad's request to continue the litigation would be that (assuming that the statements made in the plaint were correct) an estate worth one and half lakhs would go to the defendants without the smallest attempt being made to recover it. We are of opinion that Beni Prasad's application should have been allowed. 6. It was, however, contended that Benii Prasad could not be impleaded because the language of Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C. did not permit his being impleaded. Cases have arisen from time to time i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directly applies. In the case of Baja Bathnam Ayyar v. Kalasyasundaram Aiyar A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 521 the presumptive heir was alleged to be brought on the record along with the widow to protect a reversionary interest. The suit was by one who claimed to have been adopted by the last male owner. In all these cases the application for addition or substitution of parties did not fall within the language of the rules of the Civil Procedure Code and yet there was difficulty in making the necessary order. In Venkata Narain Pillai v. Subbammal A.I.R. 1915 P.c. 124 their Lordships of the Privy Council relied on Order 1, Rule 1, for ordering the sub-stitution of a more distant reversioner to continue a litigation which had been instituted by the closer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
