RAJBIR SINGH SHARMA Vs. SIRI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under section 115 CPC read with article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 9.3.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge thereby rejecting the petitioner's application under O. 22 Rule 3 read with section 151 CPC for bringing on record the LRs of the deceased Ram Richpal Sharma.

(2.) Briefly stated facts leading to this case are that on 21.12.96, Ram Richpal Sharma, since deceased, his wife Shanti Devi, his son Mukesh and one Smt. Kanti Devi, widow of Mahabir Prasad filed a suit for . recovery of Rs. 5 lakh on account of damages for various tortious/criminal acts allegedly committed by the defendants on 21.5.82. It was alleged in the plaint that Ram Richpal Sharma, plaintiff No. 1, since deceased, along with his brother Netra Ram were owner of the property No. G41-D/1 and 641-D/2, built on khasra No. 2891/ 104, Village Chandrawali, Ram Nagar, Loni Road, Delhi Shahdara. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 and 2 wanted to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff No. 1 from the suit property. Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are police officials. In furtherance of their conspiracy they attacked the plaintiff on 21.5.82, at 10 a.m. It was alleged that defendant No. 3 to 5 broke the main door from the out side of the property 641-D/l. They also fired shots in the air. Thereafter, defendant No. 3 to 5 allegedly gave merciless beatings to Mahabir Prasad and to Smt. Bahali Devi, mother of the plaintiff No. 1. It is further alleged that defendants committed dacoity and took away golden ornaments and cash besides household articles all worth Rs. 57,000/-. Further at the instance of defendant No. 1 and 2, police officials wrongfully arrested the plaintiff beside Mahabir Prasad, husband of plaintiff No. 3, Bahali Devi, mother of plaintiff No. 1 and illegally detained them and maliciously prosecuted them under section 452/ 5067 1477 1487 1497 186 and 34 IPC. The possession of 641-D1, Ram Nagar, Delhi Shahdara was wrongfully handed over to the defendant No.l who had no right, title or interest in the said property. Ultimately proceedings under section 145 Cr. P.C were drawn before SDM and vide order dated 16.12.1083 possession was restored to the plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiffs were maliciously prosecuted in the case of trespass from 1982-1996. Mahabir Prasad, husband of plaintiff No.3 and Bahali Devi, mother of the plaintiff No.l, both died because of the mental torture suffered by them. During such prolonged malicious prosecution, plaintiffs were ultimately acquitted on 7.2.1996. On these pleadings the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.5 lakh as damages under the following heads:-

(3.) Suit was contested by the defendants-respondents. During the pendency of the suit Ram Richpal Sharma expired on 22.6.99. Therefore, an application under O.22 Rule 3 CPC was filed. In the said application it was pleaded that deceased plaintiff left behind six legal heirs viz. Widow Shanti Devi, two sons Rajiv S. Sharma and Mukesh Sharma, three daughters Raj Kumari, Kamla and Indra who were cited as legal heirs. Out of these Shanti Devi and Mukesh are already impleaded as plaintiff No. 2 and 4 . Remaining 4 LRs were sought to be brought on record through this application. Learned Additional District Judge, however, rejected the application by impugned order being of the view that claim was based on personal injury, physical or mental, therefore, cause of action does not survive. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred this petition.