IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.427 of 2006 CHANDRIKA SINGH, Son of late Daroga Singh, resident of village – Suwahi, P.S. Siswan, P.O. Siswan, District – Siwan at present resident of Village Chanaurpur, P.S. – Manjhi, District – Saran. …. Plaintiff/petitioner. Versus 1. (i) RUPJHARO DEVI (ii) DEOMATI DEVI (iii) AWADHESH SINGH (iv) UMA DEVI (v) PRAMILA DEVI (vi) SOBHA DEVI (vii) BABY DEVI 2. CHANDRA BHAN SINGH 3. ALAKHDEO SINGH 4. (i) BINAY KUMAR SINGH (ii) BINOD KUMAR SINGH 5. MANDEO SINGH. All residents of village – Renua, P.S. Hussainganj, District – Siwan. …. Defendants/Opposite parties Ist Set. 6. BIJAY KUMAR SINGH, Son of late Daroga Singh, resident of village – Suwahi, P.O. Siswan, P.S. Siswan, District – Siwan at present resident of village – Chanaurpur, P.S. Manjhi, District – Saran. … Plaintiff/Opposite Party 2nd set. For the petitioners : - Mr. Nagendra Rai, Advocate Mr. Navin Nikunj, Advocate For the O.Ps. : - Mr. Biswajeet Singh, Advocate Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh, Advocate. ----------- 13/ 11.05.2009 Heard Sri Nagendra Rai, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Bishwajeet Singh, Advocate for the Opposite Parties. 1. The simple question raised through the present revision petition is as to whether court below was perfectly justified in ordering the abatement of the suit on account of the death of defendant no. 4, namely, Kapildeo Singh, in spite of the fact that his mother Rengna Kuer was already impleaded as one of the defendants to the deceased - 2 - Kapildeo Singh. 2. Sri Nagendra Rai brought into the notice of the court the provisions under Order 22 Rule 10A of the C.P.C. besides a Full Bench decision of this Court in Jagarnath Singh Vs. Smt. Singhashan Kuer & others reported in 1984 P.L.J.R. 217 (F.B.) and submitted that even a single heir of the deceased defendant being impleaded along with him was sufficient compliance to negate the abatement of the suit. Not only that even if any of the heirs of the deceased defendant of his own comes up before the court and gets impleaded then also required compliance on the part of the plaintiff not to take steps for substituting the deceased defendant would not cause the suit to be abated. The above contention was resisted by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 3. The above question was considered by the Full Bench of this Court in the above noted decision of Jagarnath Singh and final opinion was expressed in paragraph 17 of the judgment. I am tempted to quote:- “From the discussions of the several Supreme Court decisions made above, it emerges - 3 - that when one or more heirs of the deceased defendant or respondent are on record, then the estate in fully represented in the suit or the appeal, as the case may be, and the suit or the appeal will not abate for not brining on record the other left out side. This will also include a case where some of the heirs at their own initiative are brought on the record of the case. Such heirs, who applied for brining on record, would represent the entire estate. It may also include a case where through oversight or on account of such doubt as to who the heirs are, any heir is left out to be brought on record, still the estate of the deceased is fully represented by the heirs brought on record. The left out heirs may subsequently apply to be brought on record, but there will be no abatement.” 4. In view of the above authoritative decision by this Court, I find that it was completely out side the jurisdiction of the learned Munsif, IV, Chapra to have - 4 - ordered abatement of the suit in spite of the fact that Smt. Rengna Kuer the mother of the deceased defendant Kapildeo Singh was already impleaded as defendant. The order in the above behalf passed by the learned Munsif, IV, Chapra is hereby set aside on account of being not maintainable under law. The revision petition is allowed. The suit is directed to be taken up on its original number and file for final hearing in the light of pleadings which might have been filed by the parties to the suit. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)