ASHOK KRIPLANI Vs. MADAN LAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had instituted civil suit (suit no.682/2014) on 03.06.2014 impleading the respondent as second defendant, his brother-in-law Dr. Jethanand Jethwani, being the first defendant. The suit prayed for damages against the said defendants on account of vengeance, mis-representation, concealment of facts, mental agony, defamation, abuse of power and possession, mindless collusion and dragging of case. On questions about maintainability of the suit against the respondent (second defendant) being raised as per proceedings recorded by the trial judge on 29.10.2014, the matter was heard. By order dated 28.11.2014, the Additional District Judge in seisin of the matter found the plaint not disclosing any cause of action against the respondent and, thus, dismissed the case qua him. It is the said order which was assailed by the revision petition at hand.

(2.) During the pendency of the petition before this court, the respondent died. It is in that context that an application has been moved (CM 10652/2016) under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking the respondent to be substituted by Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate, the legal heir. The issue as to whether the cause of action, if any, would survive against the legal heir of the deceased respondent, in the given facts and circumstances, is intertwined with the issue as to whether the plaint disclosed any cause of action or not.

(3.) Having heard the petitioner, the plaintiff in person, he insisting on doing so (he himself being a practicing advocate) and having perused the record, this court finds no merit in the main petition and consequently in the application seeking substitution of legal heir under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC.