JP GUPTA DECD Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellants under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC against the order dated 5.1.2012 passed by the District Judge by virtue of which the application of the appellants under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for substituting their names as legal representatives of the deceased appellant, J.P. Gupta, was rejected.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the right to sue survives and, therefore, the appellants be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased appellant, J.P. Gupta. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has sought to place reliance on the Will dated 2.10.2010 purported to have been made by J.P. Gupta bequeathing certain immovable properties in favour of the appellants.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that deceased appellant J.P. Gupta was fastened with the recovery of penal rent for the period 24.7.1982 to 31.12.1990 for having unauthorizedly occupying the public premises described as A-2/156/2, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi. The appellants had preferred an appeal against the order dated 25.7.1991 passed by the Estate Officer imposing the penal rent. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant, J.P. Gupta, died and an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was filed by the present appellants claiming that they being the daughters of the deceased appellant had the right to sue surviving on them in pursuance of the Will dated 2.10.2010 which was allegedly left behind by the deceased appellant and accordingly, they should be permitted to continue with the appeal. It may be pertinent here to mention that the penal rent, of which recovery was sought from the appellant, was to the tune of Rs.4.5 lacs.