JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein (for short "the plaintiff'), instituted a suit bearing number 34/1 of 2008, before the learned Civil Judge, Court No.1, Solan, District Solan, H.P., claiming there through rendition, of, a decree, for, permanent prohibitory injunction, against, the defendants/petitioner and respondent No.6 herein, (a) hence, for there through the defendants becoming restrained, from, making interference, vis-a-vis, land measuring 5703 sq. meters comprised in khasra Nos. 124, 137, 142, 209, 1057/223, 1058/223, 1062/453, 138, 139, 140, 141, 219, 220, 221, 222, 131, 136, 140 kitas 18, khata/khatauni No. 62/78, 79 and 80 situated at mauza-Jawahar Park, Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. (for short "the suit land"), hence owned and possessed by him, and, hence, against theirs throwing debris thereon, (b) and, also claimed rendition, of, a declaratory decree, for, pronouncing qua the reflections, in, the site plan, hence, making disclosure, vis-a-vis, part, of, the suit land, comprising a general path rather being inapt. 2. In the afore Civil Suit, the defendant one Ashwani Kumar, instituted a counter claim, and, therein he arrayed, the, General public, as, a non-counter claimant No.3. The afore Non-counter claimant instituted thereto a written-statement, through, Boby Seth, Hussen Lal, Madan Lal, Jagdish, and, Girish Sharma. After issues being struck, upon, the afore Civil Suit, and, also upon the counter claim, the learned trial Judge made a verdict, hence, partly decreeing the plaintiff's suit, besides, it also decreed the defendant's counter claim, and, the afore decree, has become challenged, before, the learned Additional District Judge-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. 3. However, during, the pendency of the apposite Civil Appeal, as, reared by the aggrieved non-counter claimant/plaintiff, against, the afore made decrees, hence through an apposite application, a, proclamation was made, vis-a-vis, the persons hitherto, representing co-defendant No.3, nomenclatured as General public, (a) in as much, as, Shri Jagdish and Girish Sharma, becoming dead, and, also , an, echoing became made therein qua the whereabouts, of, one Sh. Bobby Seth being unknown, (b) and, where after, it, became espoused therein qua the names, of, the afore being ordered to be deleted, from, the apposite array, of, respondents, in, the memo of parties, vis-a-vis, the Civil appeal concerned. 4. The afore application was contested by the respondents concerned. Bobby Seth being unknown, (b) and, where after, it, became espoused therein qua the names, of, the afore being ordered to be deleted, from, the apposite array, of, respondents, in, the memo of parties, vis-a-vis, the Civil appeal concerned. 4. The afore application was contested by the respondents concerned. However, the learned first appellate Court, made an order hence allowing the application, and, it permitted one Madan Lal, to, watch and take care, the, interest in litigation, of, co-respondent No.2, nomenclatured, in, the apposite array of litigants, in, the afore application, as, General public. 5. The counter claimant, one Ashwani becoming aggrieved there from, has constituted there against, the, instant petition, before this Court, for this Court hence becoming constrained to quash, the, apposite affirmative order recorded, upon, the apposite application. 6. Apparently, the occurrence, of, demise of two, of the afore persons, and, the whereabouts, of, one Bobby Seth, remaining unknown rather happened, during, the pendency of the apposite Civil Appeal. The afores through in proceedings drawn before the learned trial Judge, rather instituted, on behalf of the General Public, hence written-statement, to, the counter claim, and, also had there through visibly hence efficaciously taken care, and, watched, the, interest in litigation, of, co-defendant No.3 nomenclatured, as, General Public. Consequently, the afores, had also ensured qua the rights of the General Public, in, the suit path, becoming aptly defended, and, vindicated. 7. Consequently, the afores, had also ensured qua the rights of the General Public, in, the suit path, becoming aptly defended, and, vindicated. 7. The learned counsel appearing, for, the aggrieved counter claimant, has contended, that, in consonance, with, the mandate embodied in Order XXII rule 2 CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, (a) conspicuously hence with the afore Madan lal remaining previously un-arrayed, in the apposite Civil Suit hence to, watch and defend, the, interest in litigation, of, co-defendant No.3 nomenclatured as General Public (b) rather when all the, afore, during, the pendency of the Civil suit before the learned trial Court, were taking care, and, watching, the, interests in litigation, of, the General Public, (c) and, with all the afore either not surviving, during, the pendency of the Civil Appeal or the whereabouts, of, one amongst them becoming unknown, (d) and, hence with mandate thereof holding a contemplation, vis-a-vis, the Court proceeding, to, permit, the, continuation of the lis, on behalf, of, the deceased litigant concerned, hence by the surviving litigant, only, obviously, upon, latter becoming evidently arrayed in the array of litigants, hence, in the memo of parties of the apposite lis, whereas, with the afore Madan lal remaining previously un-arrayed in the apposite Civil suit, (e) rather the making, of, an affirmative order, upon, an application cast under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC becoming invalid, (f) rather it was imperative, for, the learned first appellate Court, to, dismiss the appeal, as becoming abated against the General Public, (g) more so, even when the, application, as, cast under the provisions of Order 1 rule 10 CPC becoming no valid substitute, vis-a-vis, the apposite mandate embodied, in, order XXII rule 2 CPC, nor, vis-a-vis, the mandate embodied, in, order 22 rule 4 CPC. "Order XXII Rule 2: Procedure where one of several plaintiffs or defendants dies and right to sue survives-Where there are more plaintiffs or defendants that one, and any of them dies, and, where the right to sue survives to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, the Court shall cause an entry to that effect to be made on the record, and the suit shall proceed a the instance of the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs or against the surviving defendant or defendants." 8. The afore arguments would be acceptable, only if, co-defendant No.3 namely General Public, was, an animated, and, also a living being, hence survived or became survivable, by living, and, animated beings. Contrarily, the co-counter claimant No.3 General Public, is, an artificial person, (a) besides when its interest, in, the lis was being watched, and, taken care hence by all the afores, (b) and, when suit path, is, meant, for, the user of all the persons, hence residing in its apt vicinity (c) obviously hence, for, theirs making trudgings thereupon rather for all the relevant purposes, and, also with the afore either expiring or the whereabouts, of, one being not known, and, with the afore factum, emerging during, the pendency of the Civil Appeal, (d) thereupon, it was not incumbent upon the litigant concerned, to, ensure the adding in place, of, the afores, hence their respective LRs, (e) as all rights, vis-a-vis the suit path, became visited upon all the members, of, the General public, hence holding habitation rather within the vicinity, of, the suit path (f) nor would it be apt, to, proceed to make an order qua for wants', of, the afores' LRs being added in their place, rather the lis becoming abated against them, conspicuously given all the afores, not, in their individual capacity defending the lis rather theirs' defending the afore appeal, for, and, on behalf of the general public, an artificial being, hence including there within, all living beings, (g) qua where upon whoms, upon, a decree becoming rendered, would hence endow all ensuing benefits thereof, vis-a-vis, all the apt beneficiaries thereof, and, obviously who are other than the surviving legal heirs, of, all the afores, (h) and, besides, upon, an affirmative termination of the apposite lis, vis-a-vis, the general public, it becoming obviously, a, verdict in rem. In aftermath, and, consequently, for ensuing qua all the benefits, as may ensue, from, a verdict, in rem, becoming visited, upon, all beneficiaries thereof, (a) thereupon unless Madan lal where through whom the General public, is, no wat being sued, in, the apposite Civil Appeal, and, who is taking care, and, watching its' interest in litigation, before the Civil Court concerned, and, also unless he is demonstrated, to, be negligent, in, the performance of the apposite duties, is hence ensured, to, represent the interest, of, the General Public in the afore Civil Appeal, hence, all the afore apt ensuals emanating from a verdict in rem, would rather become untenably blunted. 9. Succinctly put (a) upon a lis engaging, the, general public, and, whereon a verdict in rem may, ensue from the Civil Court (b) thereupon the living animated beings, hence representing the interest in litigation, of, the General Public upon their respective demises, are not enjoined, to be substituted, by theirs respective LRs, for, watching the interest in litigation, of, the General Public, (c) as the interest in litigation, of, afore general public hence, alike the, interests in litigation, of, a minor child, as, become enjoined to be ensured, by the Civil Court concerned, qua theirs becoming watched, and, taken care, by the Court guardian, hence, alike therewith, the, interest in litigation, of, the General Public, is, enjoined to be taken care and watched by either a Court guardian or by a suitable person appointed, for, the afore purpose rather by the Civil Court concerned, (d) rather than, the afore general public, remaining un-represented or it becoming proceeded against ex-parte, for, non-representation, of, its interest, in, the apposite lis nor the apposite lis, can, for, the afore wants, hence become declared to stand abated, vis-a-vis, the General Public. Thereupon, all the afore submissions are rejected, and, Madan lal is permitted to represent, and, watch the interests in litigation, of, the General public. 10. In view of the above, the present petition stands dismissed, and, the impugned order is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.