PRADEEP KUMAR SAXENA Vs. PRASHANT VIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order impugned before this Court is the order dated 27.07.2011 whereby the application field by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') seeking reconsideration of the case in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court reported as, AIR 1962 SC 1439 Munna Lal Vs. Raj Kumar had after reconsideration declined to interfere with its earlier order dated 03.12.2007 vide which the suit of the plaintiff had been dismissed for non -joinder of parties. Record shows that Beena Saxena was an unmarried lady; she had died leaving four siblings i.e. two brothers and two sisters. The petitioner Pradeep Saxena had filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction on 17.08.2004; on 24.12.2007, the suit had been dismissed for want of necessary parties; the Court was of the view that other siblings of deceased Beena Saxena should have also been joined as parties in the absence of which the suit was dismissed. An appeal was preferred vide which the judgment was set aside; the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 18.05.2009. The plaintiff moved an application seeking impleadment of his two sisters; the brother Dalip Saxena had already died and legal representatives of Dalip Saxena were admittedly not taken on record; contention of the petitioner all along being that they would have no right or interest in the suit property; the Court was of the view that since Beena Saxena had died inte -state leaving behind four heirs in class II i.e. two brothers and two sisters and Dalip Saxena although deceased, his legal representatives would also be entitled to a share. The contention of the petitioner that the legal heirs of deceased Dalip Saxena would have no share had been repelled and rightly so. Thereafter the present application which is the subject matter of the impugned judgment had been filed seeking a reconsideration of the orders passed by the trial Court in view of the judgment the Apex Court noted supra. Facts of that case have been discussed in paras 3 to 5 of the impugned order are reproduced herein as under.

(2.) THIS order in no manner suffers from no infirmity. Both law and fact has been clearly deciphered and appreciated in the correct perspective. The petitioner appears in person. This petition is an abuse of the process of the Court. It is accordingly dismissed.