JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.—The matter was argued at length on 8.5.2018 by Sri Vineet Kumar Singh and Sri Madhav Jain alongwith connected matter. 2. Today, when the matter is taken up learned counsel for the respondent Sri Madhav Jain, who is counsel for the petitioner in the connected case is not present. After passing of the order dated 8.5.2018 on subsequent dates also he was not present. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed information slip with the endorsement that Sri Madhav Jain has refused to accept the notice that the case will be taken up in the supplementary fresh. Alongwith information slip he has also supplied messages sent on the mobile of Sri Madhav Jain and on the mobile of his Clerk. The same are taken are record. 4. When I have started hearing the matters and was about to dictate the order Sri G.S. Dube has appeared and prays for adjournment on the ground that Sri Madhav Jain is ill and is unable to attend the Court. On 8.5.2018 following order was passed : “The case is pending for about a month. Today learned counsel for the respondents is seeking time to file counter-affidavit. Connected petition has been filed by the respondents herein and the question involved in the present petition is purely legal in nature, therefore, there appears to be no requirement of counter-affidavit for deciding the pure legal question as to whether in a suit filed by the plaintiff in his personal capacity claiming declaration in his favour that he is duly elected Manager of Committee of Management of the College i.e. Janta Vidyalaya, Alinagar Kenjra, Firozabad and seeking a prohibitory injunction against defendant for restraining him permanently from acting as Manager of the College and whether the petitioner can be substituted or not. Undisputedly, the life of the term of Committee of Management was four years and the plaintiff (now deceased) could have acted as at the best for a period of four years. As such, prima facie, suit stands abated in the light of provisions of Order 22 Rule 1 CPC. Further, even the prayer of the suit has, prima facie, become infructuous, however, in the interest of justice, learned counsel for the respondents is granted three days’ time to file counter-affidavit. As such, prima facie, suit stands abated in the light of provisions of Order 22 Rule 1 CPC. Further, even the prayer of the suit has, prima facie, become infructuous, however, in the interest of justice, learned counsel for the respondents is granted three days’ time to file counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents undertakes to serve a copy of the counter-affidavit on learned counsel for the petitioner by 17.5.2018. Rejoinder-affidavit, if any, may be filed by the next date fixed, if so desires. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein, if so desires, may file counter-affidavit in the connected matter and serve a copy of the same by 17.5.2018 on learned counsel for the respondent herein, who is petitioner in the connected matter. Put up on 21.5.2018 as a fresh case alongwith connected matter with the understanding that the matter be argued on the next date. It is made clear that no further time for filing counter-affidavit will be granted on the next date.” 5. The aforesaid order was corrected vide order dated 28.5.2018, which is quoted as under : “Re: Civil Misc. Correction Application No. 2 of 2018 Heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner. In the second last line of second paragraph of order dated 8.5.2018, the words “respondent Nos. 1/1 and 1/2” be read in place of “petitioner”. The correction application is accordingly allowed. Re: Writ Petition Put up tomorrow i.e. 29.5.2018 peremptorily as fresh alongwith connected matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to inform Sri Madhav Jain about this order in writing.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that till date he has not received any counter-affidavit in the present case. 7. It is clear that Sri Mahdav Jain has failed to file counter-affidavit even till date. On 8.5.2018 Sri Madhav Jain was heard on behalf of Chet Ram Yadav, who has filed connected petition and Chet Ram Yadav is respondent No. 1/1 in the present case, as such, it is clear that he was represented in the present case on 8.5.2018. Subsequently, on 21.5.2018 following order was passed : “On 8.52018 today’s date was fixed with the understanding that the matter shall be argued on the next date and it was made clear that no further time shall be granted to file counter-affidavit. On that date the Court was of the opinion that purely legal question is involved and no counter-affidavit is required. On that date the Court was of the opinion that purely legal question is involved and no counter-affidavit is required. However, on the insistence of learned counsel for the petitioner in the connected matter time for filing counter-affidavit was granted. Today, he has filed illness slip. This practice is not appreciated. In the interest of justice, put up this case peremptorily as fresh on 28.5.2018. It is made clear that in case no one is present on that date, the Court shall proceed to hear the matter.” 8. In the aforesaid order it was provided that only legal question is involved in the present case and no counter-affidavit is required, however, considering the prayer made by Sri Madhav Jain time was granted to file counter-affidavit. Till date he has not filed any counter-affidavit and the matter is continuously being listed as a fresh case and after argument learned counsel has disappeared. I find no good ground to grant further time. 9. By order dated 21.5.2018 the case was directed to be listed peremptorily on 28.5.2018. On 28.5.2018 again the case was directed to be listed as fresh peremptorily on 29.5.2018. It is, therefore, clear that the respondents are avoiding of hearing of the case on merits. Again on 29.5.2018 Sri Jain was not present and has refused to accept notice. Therefore, today’s date was fixed and he was again given information in writing, which he again refused to accept. Now today again prayer for adjournment is being made. 10. Under such circumstances, prayer for adjournment is refused. 11. Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. As already noticed in my order dated 8.5.2018 it may however be reiterated that the petitions were connected with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case for the purpose of disposal of the petitions the present petition being Matters Under Article 227 No. 2188 of 2018 is taken as a leading case. 12. 12. As already noticed by this Court in its order dated 8.5.2018 the legal question involved in the present case is as to whether in a suit filed by the plaintiff in his personal capacity claiming declaration in his favour that he is duly election Manager of Committee of Management of the College i.e. Janta Vidyalaya, Alinagar Kenjra, Firozabad and seeking a prohibitory injunction against defendant for restraining him permanently from acting as Manager of the College, the respondent No. 1/1 and 1/2 could have been substituted or not. The petition No. 2188 of 2018 has been filed with the following prayer : “(i) Issue a suitable order or direction setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 7.12.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Firozabad in Civil Revision No. 26 of 2015 (Hirdesh Bihari Yadav v. Sri Pratap Singh Yadav and others) as well as impugned judgment and order dated 31.3.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Firozabad in Original Suit No. 156 of 1990 (Pratap Singh Yadav v. Sri Babu Ram Yadav) (Annexures 13 and 12 to the petition). (ii) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) Award the cost of the petition.” 13. The petition No. 2402 of 2018 has been filed with the following prayer : “i) issue suitable order or direction thereby set aside judgment and order dated 7.12.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No. 2), Firozabad in Civil Revision No. 16 of 2017 and also order dated 8.2.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court, Firozabad in Original Suit No. 156 of 1990. (ii) Issue such other and further order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iii) Award costs of petition to the petitioners.” 14. There is no dispute about the fact that suit was filed by the plaintiff Pratap Singh Yadav in his personal capacity. Prayer made in OS NO. iii) Award costs of petition to the petitioners.” 14. There is no dispute about the fact that suit was filed by the plaintiff Pratap Singh Yadav in his personal capacity. Prayer made in OS NO. 156 of 1990 is quoted as under : “A Declaring that the plaintiff is a duly elected Manager of J.V. Inter College, Ali Nagar Kenjra and further declaring that the defendant is not a valid and duly elected Manager of J.V. Inter College Alinagar Kendra, the defendant be permanently restrained from acting as the Manager of the J.V. Inter College Ali Nagar Kenjra, Tesil, and District Firozabad. B. By a permanent decree of prohibitory injunction the defendant be restrained permanently from acting as Manager of J.V. Inter College, Ali Nagar Kenjra. C. To award cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.” (emphasis supplied) 15. For ready reference provision of Order 22 Rule 1 CPC is quoted as under : “1. No abatement by party’s death if right to sue survives—the death of a plaintiff or defendant shall not cause the suit to abate if the right to sue survives. High Court Amendment Allahabad- In Order XXII, in rule1, at the end, insert the words “or to proceedings in the original Court taken after the passing of the preliminary decree where a final decree also requires to be passed having regard to the nature of the suit”. 16. The suit was filed by Pratap Singh Yadav (sole plaintiff) against Sri Babu Ram Yadav (sole defendant). Admittedly, the suit was filed for declaration and for injunction in his personal capacit, seeking declaration that the plaintiff is duly elected Manager of the college and that the defendant is not a valid and duly election Manager of the college and prayer for injunction was made to the effect that the defendant be permanently restrained from acting as Manager of the college. It may be noticed that Committee of Management of the college was not plaintiff in the suit. As such, the right to sue did not survive after death of the sole plaintiff, who is claiming declaration in his favour in his individual capacity. Clearly, once the right to sue did not survive, the suit stood abated in view of the above-quoted provision. 17. As such, the right to sue did not survive after death of the sole plaintiff, who is claiming declaration in his favour in his individual capacity. Clearly, once the right to sue did not survive, the suit stood abated in view of the above-quoted provision. 17. Further, it is also not in dispute that in view of the term of Committee of Management being four years the plaintiff could at the best have acted as Manager in his personal claim, if accepted, for four years only and therefore, the prayer so made in the petition has also become infructuous. During course of argument it was highlighted that Chet Ram and others are trying to linger on the matter simply to enjoy the benefit of the judgment of this Court dated 3.9.1996 passed in Special Appeal No. 652 of 1996 (Pratap Singh Yadav and another v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra and others, operative portion whereof is quoted as under : “Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 2.8.1996 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5136 of 1996 is set aside. It is stated by the learned counsel for parties that the authorised controller is now in-charge of the management of the institution. The arrangement will continue until further order of the Civil Court in the afore-mentioned suits. It is further ordered that the pending suits will be disposed of expeditiously on out of turn basis.” (emphasis supplied) 18. Needless to point out that suit filed in the year 1990, inspite of the direction of expeditous disposal passed in special appeal on 3.9.1996, remain pending and no effort during his lifetime, as alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner, was ever made by the plaintiff to get the suit decided. 19. Under such circumstances, I find that the suit itself stood abated in view of the provisions of Order 22 Rule 1 CPC and once the suit stood abated with the death of Pratap Singh Yadav, the sole plaintiff, any order passed either for substitution of the respondent No. 1/1 Chet Ram Yadav and 1/2 Raghuveer Singh Yadav or impleadment of Hirdesh Bihari Yadav the petitioner herein, in the connected matter, who is son of late Babu Ram Yadav are in-consequential and meaningless. 20. 20. In the opinion of the Court the substitution application for substitution in place of plaintiff and impleadment application filed for impleadment in place of the defendant were totally misconceived and no order should have been passed on these applications. 21. Accordingly, the orders, impugned in the present petition, dated 7.12.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Firozabad in Civil Revision No. 26 of 2015 (Hirdesh Bihari Yadav v. Sri Pratap Singh Yadav and others) as well as impugned order dated 31.3.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Firozabad in Original Suit No. 156 of 1990 as well as orders, impugned in the connected petition, dated 7.12.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No. 2), Firozabad in Civil Revision No. 16 of 2017 and also order dated 8.2.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court, Firozabad in Original Suit No. 156 of 1990 are hereby set aside. The suit being OS No. 156 of 1990 (Pratap Singh Yadav v. Babu Ram Yadav) stands dismissed as abated. 22. Both the petitions stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned within ten days.