Ram Ugrah Ojha And Anr. vs Ganesh Singh on 29 November, 1939
6. Kalkanand Swami not having been sued in a representative character and Satyanand Swami not having been brought on the record as having succeeded to the mahantship, the defence that was raised by him was not open to him under Order 22, Rule 4, Civil P.C., with all respect to the learned Judges who decided this case we do not therefore agree with the decision. The law has been correctly laid down in Kalloo v. Niader Singh (1929) 16 AIR All 252. There, subsequent to a preliminary decree obtained by the defendants against the plaintiffs' father alone without impleading the plaintiffs, the father died and the plaintiffs were substituted as his legal representative. A final decree was then passed ex parte. Later on, the plaintiffs unsuccessfully tried to have the ex parte decree set aside, raised objections to the preparation of the final decree and attacked the mortgaged decree on the ground that the mortgage was without legal necessity. It was held: