Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28236 Court No. - 8 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 63 of 2023 Revisionist :- Ajay Prakash And Others Opposite Party :- Jan Chetna Pustak Pratishthan Samiti Thru. Secy. Ram Babu Pal And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Virendra Kumar Tripathi,Shamsher Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- Deepanshu Dass,Yogesh Gurnanee Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Deepanshu Dassthe learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The instant revision has been preferred assailing the order dated 29.05.2023 whereby upon the death of defendant no.2, namely, Satendra Kumar an application for substitution was moved which has been allowed by the trial court by the said order. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the respondents no.1 to 6 who were the plaintiffs before the trial court had instituted Regular Suit No.1107 of 2013 seeking a decree for recovery of money for damages on account of defamation and further claimed the relief of permanent as well as manadatory injunction. The defendant no.2 died on 29.12.2019 and the plaintiffs had moved an application which was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay as well as setting aside abatement. After hearing the parties concerned, the court allowed the said application and directed the heirs of the deceased defendant no.2 to be brought on record. 4. The sole submission which has been made before this Court by the learned counsel for the revisionists is that since the suit was for defamation, accordingly after the death of the defendant no.2 the cause of action abated as it was personal to him and therefore there was no requirement to bring the legal heirs on record. 5. Having considered the aforesaid submission, apparently it may not have much substance for the reason that the copy of the plaint has been brought on record alongwith the revision as annexure no.1. The relief claimed was not only for damages for defamation but it also contained the relief for permanent as well as mandatory injunctions. 6. Considering the relief which has been prayed in the suit in paragraph-24, the decree of permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction has not been specifically confined to any one particular defendant rather it has been claimed against all. In the aforesaid circumstances, upon the death of defendant no.2, his legal heirs ought to have been brought on record which has been considered and allowed by the trial court. Moreover, the plea which is sought to be raised by the counsel for the revisionists could have been available only to the heirs of the deceased defendant no.2 who have not come forward to challenge the order. As far as the present revisionists are concerned, they are the other co-defendants, who do not have the right to raise this objection and they cannot be treated to be an aggrieved person to enable them to file this revision. No other point has been pressed. 7. For the aforesaid reason, Tte revision is apparently misconceived and is dismissed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 ank Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench