ORDER

Ajit Singh, J.

1. This revision, by the defendant/applicant is directed against the order dated 11-12-2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2003 by the VIIIth Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, whereby its application under Section 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

2. The defendant/applicant is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is also registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The object of the Society, according to its memorandum of association, is to promote various social, economic, educational, cultural activities or any profitable field of activity and activities like giving scholarship, medical aid, etc. to needy persons. To achieve this object, the defendant/applicant undertook the activity of making papad for which it engaged women who were willing to abide by its object. Any woman could become the member of the defendant/applicant by working with it. The defendant/applicant has many branches. In the year 1974 one branch was also opened in Jabalpur town. The plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 was appointed as a Sanchalika of that branch. Some differences arose between the defendant/applicant and the working of the Jabalpur branch. Therefore, on 22-2-1978 a decision was taken by the Managing Committee of the defendant/applicant to close its Jabalpur branch. The decision was communicated to the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1. Aggrieved by the decision dated 22-2-1978 the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 alongwith 190 members of Jabalpur Branch filed the suit in question on 9-3-1978 for declaration and injunction questioning the legality of decision dated 22-2-1978. Alongwith the plaintiff, an application for grant of temporary injunction was also filed. The Trial Court granted the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The order of temporary injunction was affirmed by the Superior Courts.

3. The suit is, thus, pending since 1978. Now it is fixed for the recording of defendant/applicant's evidence.

4. The plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 filed an application dated 17-10-2003 for deleting the names of plaintiff No. 2 to 191 (non-applicant Nos. 2 to 191) on the ground that due to lapse of 25 years some of them have died or some of them are not interested or have ceased to be members. This application was not objected by the defendant/applicant. The Trial Court ordered deletion of the names of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 191 (non-applicant Nos. 2 to 191) from the cause title of the plaint.

5. The defendant/applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the rejection of plaint on the ground that since all the plaintiffs, except for the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 have either died or left the Jabalpur Branch, the cause of action does not survive and since the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiffs were not brought on record, the suit stands abated. This application was opposed by the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1. The Trial Court, by the impugned order has rejected the application.

6. The plaintiffs, other than plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1, were joined as plaintiffs in their individual capacity as members. By deletion of their names, because some of them died or some of them are not interested or have ceased to be members, the entire suit can not be said to have abated or come to an end. Plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 filed the suit claiming the reliefs as a member and also as Sanchalika (Manager) of Jabalpur Branch. Whether she is entitled to get any relief as a member or as Sanchalika is yet to be decided in the suit. The right claimed by the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 in the suit was not a joint or indivisible right with the other plaintiffs whose names have been deleted. Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with abatement has to be strictly construed and the entire suit can not be taken to have abated simply because some of the plaintiffs have died and the legal representatives have not been brought on record. As recently observed by the Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra and Ors. v. Pramod Gupta and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 272 pp 300, 301 :

"A careful reading of the provisions contained in Order 22, CPC as well as the subsequent amendments thereto would lend credit and support to the view that they were devised to ensure their continuation and culmination in an effective adjudication and not to retard the further progress of the proceedings and thereby non-suit the others similarly placed as long as their distinct and independent rights to property or any claim remain intact and not lost forever due to the death of one or the other in the proceedings. The provisions contained in Order 22 are not to be construed as a rigid matter of principle but must ever be viewed as a flexible tool of convenience in the administration of justice."

The suit, so far as the claim of plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 is concerned, has neither abated nor has become incompetent on the ground that names of other plaintiffs have been deleted. The cause of action, so far as plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 is concerned, survives. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality nor there is any error of jurisdiction.

7. The revision has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. The Lower Court will now expeditiously proceed with the trial and decide the suit on priority basis.