NEERAJ SARASWAT Vs. NEENA SARASWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the revisionist. One Sudama Lal Saraswat, father of the revisionist Neeraj Saraswat filed a suit for recovery of money against Neeraj Saraswat and others. The suit was decreed by a judgment dated 25.02.2010, against which Neeraj Saraswat preferred a first appeal before this court, which is pending consideration. In the meanwhile, Sudama Lal Saraswat, the decree holder filed an application for the execution of the decree and, during the pendency of the execution proceedings, the decree holder died. Smt. Neena Saraswat filed an application for substituting her name in place of the deceased decree holder alleging that she has inherited the property on the basis of a will executed by the decree holder. The revisionist, judgment debtor filed objection against the substitution application. The executing court allowed the said application by an order dated 10th September, 2010. The judgment debtor preferred a civil revision, which was allowed by this court on 04th May, 2011 and the matter was remitted back to the executing court to decide the matter afresh. The executing court, after considering the matter afresh in the light of the observations made by this court, allowed the substitution application by an order of 31st October, 2011. The judgment debtor, being aggrieved, has filed the present revision.

(2.) The contention of the judgment debtor is that he is the legal heir of the decree holder, being his son, and is entitled to a share in his estate and, by the impugned order, he has been divested from his lawful share in the estate of the decree holder.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is patently erroneous and bereft of merit. In proceedings under Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, what is required to be considered is whether the person claiming to represent the estate of the deceased for the purpose of a lis has a sufficient interest in carrying on the litigation and is not an imposter. In the present case, an application was filed by the daughter of the deceased claiming to be the lawful heir on the basis of a will. The court below considered the will and allowed the substitution application indicating that the person is rightfully claiming the estate of the deceased and has a sufficient interest in carrying on the litigation. Such determination made by the court does not result in the determination of an inverse right to succeed to the property in as much as such right to succeed to the property has to be established in an independent proceeding. The court is of the opinion that an order passed under Order 22 of the C.P.C. does not determine the rights of the parties claiming as legal representatives. In the light of the aforesaid, the court does not find any error in the order passed by the executing court allowing the substitution application. The civil revision fails and is dismissed summarily.