Delhi Development Authority Vs. Amarnath and ors.

code of civil procedure--order 22 rule 4--respondent no 2 died during the pendency of the appeal. this was noted by this court in its order dated 19-11-1986, no application was made for bringing legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record--held that the appeal has abated air 1973 sc 204 relied upon. - - ramdular singh & others air 1973 sc 204 it has been held that where a joint claim against several defendants in made in a suit and during pendency of appeal by the plaintiff some of the defendants die and no separate claim is made against any of the defendants in appeal, the failure of the plaintiff to bring on record their legal representatives results in abatement of appeal in toto.p.n. nag. j. (1) this appeal is directed against the order dated 14th august. 1972 passed by shri b.b gupta, d.j.s.addl. senior sub judge, delhi setting aside and reversing the judgment of the trial court dated 21st january, 1969 and thereby restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff otherwise than in due course of law. being aggrieved by this order dated 14th august, 1972 the delhi development authority has filed this regular second appeal against the plaintiff-respondent. the respondent plaintiffs had filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing them in any manner whatsoever from plot no. 2, situated behind g.p.o. delhi or from the building standing thereon.(2) as is apparent from the order dated 19-11-1986 of this court, during the pendency of the appeal, respondent no 2, shri bishan nath, died in the year 1986 admittedly, no application for bringing on the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 2 has so far been tiled.(3) in babu sukhram singh v. ramdular singh & others air 1973 sc 204 it has been held that where a joint claim against several defendants in made in a suit and during pendency of appeal by the plaintiff some of the defendants die and no separate claim is made against any of the defendants in appeal, the failure of the plaintiff to bring on record their legal representatives results in abatement of appeal in toto. thereforee, in the light of the law laid down by the supreme 'court the appeal has abated and there is no operation left to court except to dismiss the appeal as abated.