RAMESH CHAND ALIAS RAMESH CHANDER Vs. UGANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 22nd of August, 2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CM No. 4194 of 2006 and in CRP No. 528 of 1993. So far as CM No. 4194 of 2006 is concerned, it appears that an application was filed by the appellant for deletion of the name of Respondent No. 1 from the Cause Title of the Civil Revision Petition being CR No. 528 of 1993. By the impugned order, the High Court had rejected the same on the ground that Respondent No. 1 had died on 25th February, 1994 and no steps were taken to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Respondent No. 1 and that the earlier Revision Petition was also dismissed for non-prosecution on 29th September, 1999, but was subsequently restored. According to the High Court, the appellant was deliberately not bringing the heirs and legal representatives of Respondent No. 1 on record only to prolong the hearing of the Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, the High Court rejected the application holding that since Respondent No. 1 was survived by heirs and legal representatives, it was not possible to accede to the request of the appellant to delete Respondent No. 1 from the array of parties.

(3.) In respect of this order, which is challenged in this appeal, we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We have examined the materials on record including the application for deletion filed by the appellant before the High Court. In our view, the High Court had acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction by not allowing the said application. The carriage of the proceedings of the Civil Revision was with the appellant and since the appellant could not bring on record the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Respondent No. 1, it would be open for him to proceed with the Civil Revision Petition at his own risk and the High Court may dismiss the Civil Revision Petition at the time of final hearing on the ground that on the death of the deceased Respondent No. 1 whose heirs and legal representatives were not brought on record, the entire Civil Revision Petition had abated. Therefore, we do not find any reason why the prayer for deletion of the name of Respondent No. 1 and to proceed with the Civil Revision case at his own risk should not be allowed and the name of Respondent No. 1 be stuck out from the Cause Title of the Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, the application for deletion of the name of the Respondent No. 1 is allowed. We, however, make it clear that the Civil Revision Petition shall proceed in the absence of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Respondent No. 1 at the risk of the appellant.