IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.117 of 2009 1. RAM NARAYAN PANDEY @ RAJ NARAYAN PANDEY, S/O LATE RAM ASHISH PANDEY. 2. KAILASH PATI DEVI, D/O LATE RAM ASHISH PANDEY 3. RAJPATI DEVI, D/O LATE RAM ASHISH PANDEY. 4. MALTI DEVI, D/O LATE RAM ASHISH PANDEY. 5. PRABHA DEVI, D/O LATE RAM ASHISH PANDEY. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SHERPUR, P.O.-GHEGHTA, P.S.-CHAPRA MUFFASIL, DISTRICT-SARAN. …………PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS. Versus 1. LALLAN SINGH, S/O LOKA SINGH. 2. SHAILENDRA SINGH, S/O LATE BALESHWAR SINGH. 3. MOST. BINDA, W/O LATE BALESHWAR SINGH. 4. SURAN SINGH @ SURENDRA SINGH. 5. SURESH SINGH. BOTH SONS OF LATE BALESHWAR SINGH. 6. SARALA KUMARI, D/O LATE BALESHWAR SINGH ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SHERPUR, P.O.-GHEGHTA, P.S.-CHAPRA MUFFASIL, DISTRICT-SARAN. 7. ANITA DEVI, D/O LATE BALESHWAR SINGH, W/O JANAU SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-TAJPUR, P.O.-BASHI, DISTRICT-SARAN. 8. MUTUR DEVI, D/O LATE BALESHWAR SINGH, W/O VIKRAM SINGH, R/O VILAGE&P.O.-SENGAR TOLA, DISTRICT-SARAN. ……………DEFENDANT-O.Ps. ----------- 9 24.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The plaintiffs has filed this revision application against order dated 17.11.2008 by which the trial court has held that entire suit has abated on account of non-substitution of legal heirs of the deceased defendant no. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one son of defendant was already on record as defendant no. 2 and as such it was not necessary for the plaintiff to substitute other legal heirs of the deceased defendant no. 1, namely, the wife as well as other son of the defendant in the suit. The suit was filed for grant of mandatory injunction against the defendants restraining them from flowing the drain water in the land of the plaintiff. Obviously such relief against only one of the - 2 - heirs of the original defendant could not be sufficient as the other heirs of original defendant no. 1, who were not on record, could not be restrained from the said act of flowing drain water in the land of the plaintiff. The court below has found that the other heirs of original defendant no. 1 were also necessary parties and in absence of them entire suit abates. The order also shows that the defendant no. 1 died on 17.4.1996 and since then the plaintiff had not taken any steps for substitution of the other heirs of defendant no. 1 in the suit. In the circumstances, this court does not find any error in the order of the court below and the revision application is dismissed. The plaintiffs will be at liberty to take steps for restoration of the suit and for substitution of remaining heirs of the deceased defendant no. 1 in the suit in accordance with law. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)