1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.121 OF 2010. (Manik Vasantrao Pawar and Ors. Vs. Yashwant Bhagwan Shastir and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.RR Mantri, Adv. for petitioners; Mr.AK Gugale, Adv. h/for Mr. AM Gholap, Adv. for Respondent No.1(A). *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 16 th November, 2010. ... 1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties extensively. 2) Rejection of application (Exhibit-123) in Regular Civil Suit No.227/1998 moved by the legal representatives of deceased defendant for disposing of the suit on the ground that after death of the original defendant – Vasant Sahadu Pawar, the suit for injunction becomes infructuous, is questioned in the present revision. 3) Several contentions are advanced by both the learned Counsel. It was informed that original plaintiff also expired, however, his son was already on record. The case revolves to bringing the legal representatives of deceased defendant – 2 Vasant, who are consequently brought on record as defendant nos.1(a) to 1(g). 4) The learned Judge in his elaborate judgment, considered the legal position, as would be flowing in terms of order 22 Rule 1 and Rule 4 of CPC and dwelt upon the legal consequence arising out of the death of deceased sole defendant – Vasant. Incidentally, the prayer in the plaint, which is at page 12, is not confining to injunction against the defendant, but it also relates to restrain either the defendant or any other person on his behalf, not to cause obstruction in the user of ready- made shop of the plaintiff. This situation indeed illustrated and considered by the learned Judge in paragraph 4 of his order. 5) The learned Counsel for the respondent has taken course to several judgments, particularly, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1124 (V 54 C 234) (Girijaanandini Devi and Ors. Vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhary), which was in respect of a suit concerning partition and the matter was revolved to rendition of accounts. The fact remains, considering the prayer clause, even if by virtue of death of sole defendant, the cause of suit still survives, and since his legal representatives are brought on record, 3 the plaintiff asserted injunction against the defendant or any person claiming on his behalf, consequently, it will also bind the legal representatives of the deceased defendant – Vasant. 6) In this set of situation, it is difficult to digest that there would not subserve any cause of action to the plaintiff. In the result, the order under challenge does not call for any interference. Civil Revision Application dismissed. No cost. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/