PUSHPA KUMARI Vs. DEWAN CHAND TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendants challenges the judgment and order dated 30-1 -1978 of the Commercial Sub-Judge, Delhi allowing the application of the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Order I Rule ,10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) Briefly the facts arc L.Dewen Chand; Trust plaintiff-respondent No.1 and its trustees respondents No. 2 to 6 filed a suit in 1967 for possession against Pishori Lal, predecessor of the appellants with respect to Quarter Nos.3 and 4 of 30, Ferozeshah Road, New Delhi. On 31-12-1977 an application under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Order I Rule 10 of the Code was filed by the plaintiffs and. the newly appointed trustees of L.Dewan Chand Trust alleging that out of five trustees, Mr Ram Lubhaya and Smt. Prakash Wati, respondents No. 4 and 5 have died, that the remaining trustees i.e. respondents No. 2,3 and 6 appointed Mr. K..C. Khanna, Prof Veda Vyas,Dr. G.L. Datta. Mr. Naunit Lal Advocate and Mr. Des Raj Mehta as other trustees of the plaintiff Trust, that the new trustees were desirous of becoming co-plaintiffs and to continue the suit against the defendants. The appellants-defendants resisted the application on the ground that the same was belated as Smt. Prakash Wati died in 1976 and Mr. Ram Lubhaya had died earlier and that the suit had abated. The plaintiffs and other trustees in their rejoinder stated that Mr. Ram Lubhaya trustee died on 7-10-1968, that Smt. Prakash Wati trustee died on 24-8-1976, that Mr. K.C. Khanna was appointed trustee on 24-7-1975, Prof. Veda Vyas and Dr. G.L. Datta were appointed trustees on 16-8-1976, Mr. Naunit Lal Advocate was appointed trustees on 3-9-1976 and Mr. Des Raj Mehta was appointed trustee on 18-10-1976. The trial Court rejected the objections of the defendants and allowed the application impleading the new trustees.

(3.) The suit for possession was filed by the Trustees through its trustees. The trustees who are co-plaintiffs are representatives of the Trust. In other words, plaintiffs filed the suit in their representative capacity of the Trust and not' in personal capacity. Order 22 Rule 10 of the code reads as under.