Mitthulal And Ors. vs Badri Prasad And Ors. on 12 August, 1980
So also an order refusing to bring on record one as legal representative [Bhagwan v. Vishwanath (supra); Kanai v. Pannasashi, AIR 1954 Cal 588 and Babulal v. Jugal, AIR 1954 Nag 2541. A party aggrieved has a remedy of revision to show that the impugned order is vitiated by illegality as the Court acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. So in the present case the order of abatement did not follow any adjudication that the right to sue does not survive and, as such, there was no adjudication of the rights of the parties and it did not amount to a decree and no appeal lay. The trial Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in rejecting the application for substitution made by the applicants without holding any enquiry. A revision lies against such a perverse order. There could not have been any abatement unless and until there was adjudication of the rights of the applicants to be substituted in place of the original plaintiff. How could there be abatement when the application for substitution was brought within time and the applicants, according to the trial Court, were tentatively brought on record in place of the original plaintiff.