TIWARI, M.—This is a reference under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 made by Additional Collector Pratapgarh against the impugned judgment dated 4.7.1994 of Sub-Divisional Officer Pratapgarh passed in suit No. 74/83. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case leading to this reference are that the non-petitioners No. 1 to 3 filed an application against Manohar Singh, Prahalad Singh, Prem Singh and Khuman Singh under Section 183-A of the Act for summary eviction of mortgagee on non-delivery of possession of lands after the expiry of period of mortgage, in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer Pratapgarh. During pendency of the application the non-applicant Manohar Singh had died; but his legal representatives were not brought on record in time by the applicant, so the entire case was declared abated by Sub-Divisional Officer Pratapgarh vide his impugned order dated 4.7.1994, aggrieved against which the State Government has preferred this reference. 3. I have heard the learned counsels of both the parties. 4. The learned Government Advocate on behalf of the State government contended that the matter under dispute is not a simple matter of summary eviction of mortgagee due to non-delivery of possession after expiry of the period of mortgage, but also it is a serious matter against the proclaimed State policy against the transfer of lands of a person of scheduled caste in favour of persons of non-scheduled caste. The non-petitioners No. 1 to 3 are khatedar tenants of the disputed land belonging to scheduled caste category. It is alleged that they have mortgaged the lands to rest of the non-petitioners; in fact it is an illegal transfer against the provisions of section 42of the Act. In such a case State Government is a necessary party; but State Government has been deliberately kept away from the legal proceedings. It was the duty of the court also to implead the State Government as a necessary party which is not done, hence as soon as this illegality came to the knowledge of the Collector this reference has been made. 5. It was the duty of the court also to implead the State Government as a necessary party which is not done, hence as soon as this illegality came to the knowledge of the Collector this reference has been made. 5. The Government Advocate further contended that the impugned order is passed by Sub-Divisional Officer Pratapgarh without going through the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10-A of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) in which it is mandatory duty of the opposite counsel to communicate to the court about the death of his party along with information about the names of legal representatives of the deceased; but the opposite counsel has failed in his duty. So the application before Sub-Divisional Officer could not be abated due to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Order 22 Rule 10-A of the C.P.C. Besides it, an important matter of violation of section 42 of the Act cannot be dealt with so lightly without impleading the State Government. Therefore, the impugned order of the trial Court should be set aside. It is also contended that it is not a case of section 183-A of the Act but section 183-B of the Act due to illegal occupation of the lands of scheduled caste khatedars. Therefore, the impugned order of the trial court should be set aside. 6. Opposing the contentions of the Government Advocate, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners No. 4/1, 6 and 7 pleaded that it was the duty of the applicant to bring the legal representatives of the deceased non-applicant on record within prescribed period of ninety days under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC.; but the same was not done, as such the trial Court correctly held the case as abated. It was also pleaded that in case of joint trespass, the right to sue remaining co-trespassers do not survive when one of the co-trespassers has died. The learned counsel cited 1981 RRD 311 and 1983 RRD 126 in support of his contention. It was also pleaded that the impugned order is an appealable order, so the reference against such an appealable order does not lie, as is held in 2000(7) RBJ 408. It was also submitted that the landholder Tehsildar is not a necessary party in the case filed under section 183-A of the Act. The learned counsel pressed for rejection of the reference. 7. It was also submitted that the landholder Tehsildar is not a necessary party in the case filed under section 183-A of the Act. The learned counsel pressed for rejection of the reference. 7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the contents of the reference made by Additional Collector Pratapgarh and gone through the material on record. 8. Admittedly, the disputed lands stands in the names of the non-petitioners No. 1 to 3 as khatedar tenants in the revenue records. The non-petitioners No. 1 to 3 filed an application under Section 183-A of the Act in the court of Tehsildar Pratapgarh on the ground that the disputed lands were mortgaged to the father of the non-petitioners Gamer Singh who refused to re-deliver the possession to the non-petitioners No. 1 to 3 after expiry of five years of mortgage. After the death of Gamer Singh his legal representatives have occupied the lands unauthorizedly so they should be dispossessed. In the application under section 183-A of the Act neither the landholder through Tehsildar Pratapgarh nor the State Government through Collector Pratapgarh were impleaded. The contention of the learned counsel for the State Government is that the disputed land involves a serious matter of transfer of lands from a khatedar tenant of scheduled caste to persons of non-scheduled caste against the provisions of section 42 of the Act; such transfer of the lands of the scheduled caste persons to persons of non-scheduled caste is also against the proclaimed State policy meant for safeguarding the interest of khatedar tenants of scheduled caste. I am inclined to agree with this plea of learned Government Advocate that in such a controversy involving a matter of State policy and alleged violation of section 42 of the Act, landholder through Tehsildar and State Government through Collector Pratapgarh are necessary parties and they should have been impleaded in the proceedings undertaken under Section 183-A of the Act. 9. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners has argued that a judgment given under section 183-A of the Act is an appealable order, so the State Government should have filed an appeal against it instead of preferring reference against the impugned order. This plea of the learned counsel is admissible only when the State Government or the landholders is a party to the dispute in the main suit or application. This plea of the learned counsel is admissible only when the State Government or the landholders is a party to the dispute in the main suit or application. But in the case filed under Section 183-A of the Act, neither the landholder through Tehsildar nor the State Government through Collector is made a party. So when this matter came to the knowledge of the Collector, the period of limitation for filing of appeal had already expired. Therefore, Collector has made a reference under Section 232 of the Act. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the ruling of 2000(7) RBJ 408 does not apply here, as its facts and circumstances are altogether different. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners that the non-petitioners No. 1 to 3 had failed to bring legal representatives of the deceased non-petitioner Manohar Singh on record within ninety days in accordance with the provisions of Order 22 Rule 3 of the C.P.C., so Sub-Divisional Officer Pratapgarh rightly held the suit abated and since dispute involved a number of co-trespassers whose interest cannot be separated, the entire suit abates. This contention and the ruling cited by the learned counsel in support of this contention are tenable only when the non-petitioners have fulfilled their duty cast upon them under Order 22 Rule 10-A of the CPC which says that it is the duty of the pleader to communicate to the Court about the death of his party; but in the instant case the non-petitioners have not carried out their mandatory duty stipulated under Order 22 rule 10-A of the CPC. In this regard it is held by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in 1997(1) WLC 597 that it is not only mandatory for the counsel of the defendants to intimate to the court about the death of one of his defendants; but such intimation must provide names of the legal representatives of the deceased also. In such a situation of dereliction of the duty on the part of counsel under Rule 10-A of Order 22 of the CPC the suit/application cannot be held abated due to non-compliance of the mandatory legal provision as held by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in 1997(1) WLC 619; and the court should have liberally condoned the delay for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased on record as is held in 1992 (2) RLW (Raj.) 1137. Thus, the trial Court has erred in holding abatement of the application without perusing the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10-A of the CPC. Evidently, for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Order 22 Rule 10-A of the CPC., the application under Section 183-A of the Act does not stand abated. 11. In addition to what is described above, it is worth mentioning here that Assistant Collector Pratapgarh has written final judgment on the order sheet quite casually and clumsily giving scant regard to mandatory provision contained in Rule 126 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual (Vol. II) which expressly prohibits to write judgment or final order on the order sheet. Thus Assistant Collector has violated the mandatory provision of Rule 126 of the Revenue Courts Manual (Vol. II). 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the reference is allowed the impugned judgment dated 4.7.1994 of Sub-Divisional Officer Pratapgarh is set aside and the matter is remanded to Sub-Divisional Officer Pratapgarh to decide the case in light of above observations impleading the landholder through Tehsildar Pratapgarh and State Government through Collector Pratapgarh as parties and taking legal representatives of the deceased Manohar Singh on record. The trial Court is expected to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with provisions of law. Pronounced.