HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3464 of 2009 ORDER: A curious case where both the parties are ad idem regarding the death of the first defendant and his estate being represented by petitioners 1 and 2 herein (defendants 2 and 3). In the suit, the respondents-plaintiffs filed I.A.No.226 of 2000 under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said I.A. was rejected by the Court below on the ground that Rule 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been complied with. The Suit itself was later dismissed aggrieved by which the respondents plaintiffs preferred A.S.No.13 of 2006 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta. In his docket order dated 22.06.2009, the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, records the aforesaid facts but rejected the contention, urged on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs, that the death of the first defendant be recorded, on the ground that no revision had been preferred by the respondents-plaintiffs against the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.226 of 2000. What is even more curious is that it is not the Appellants in A.S.No.13 of 2006, who have sought to question the docket order of the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, dated 22.06.2009, but defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4, who have filed the present revision questioning the said order. Sri A.Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, would draw attention of this Court to Order 22 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to contend that when the defendant dies, the right to sue survives against the surviving defendants, that a duty is cast on the Court to cause an entry to that effect to be made in the record and that the suit shall proceed against the surviving defendants. Learned counsel would submit that, since the obligation is on the Court to record the death of the first defendant when such fact is brought to its notice, the mere fact that the earlier I.A. was dismissed by the Trial Court, and no revision had been preferred thereagainst, was of no consequence. Sri M.V. Suresh, Learned counsel for the respondents- plaintiffs, would contend that, it is the memo filed by them, which was rejected by the Appellate Court and that it is their I.A., (I.A.No.226 of 2000), which was rejected by the Trial Court. According to the Learned counsel, while it was open for the Respondents-plaintiffs to prefer a revision against either of the said orders, the petitioners-defendants could not challenge dismissal of the respondents-plaintiffs I.A. or the memo filed by them before the Appellate Court, by way of a revision before this Court. Learned counsel would submit that the only remedy available to the petitioners-defendants herein is to file an I.A. before the Appellate Court seeking to have the death of the first defendant recorded and to record that his estate was represented by the other defendants. As noted hereinabove, both counsel herein agree that the first respondent in A.S.No.13 of 2006 is no more. The dispute is on the manner in which his death is required to be recorded by the Appellate Court. I see no reason to be swayed by technicalities as the jurisdiction which this Court exercises, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not only to ensure that justice is done but also to ensure that its failure to interfere does not result in manifest injustice. As it is evident that the first defendant in the Suit (1st Respondent in A.S.No.13 of 2006) is no more, the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, shall record his death in A.S.No.13 of 2006. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt: 26-11-2009 usd