SWAMI SANDHYAPURI TRUST, RISHIKESH, DISTRICT DEHRADUN AND ANOTHER Vs. SWAMI MAHESHWAANAND DISCIPLE SWAMI PRAKASHANAND AND 10 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (CLMA 10236/2012)

(2.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 7 -9 -2012 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, Rishikesh in O.S. No. 11 of 2006 Swami Maheshwaranand and another vs. Swami Sandhyapuri Trust and others, whereby the application 95 -C filed by plaintiff No. 1 to substitute the legal heir of plaintiff No. 2, has been allowed. Perusal of record shows that Swami Maheshwaranand and Hardayal Singh had filed a suit U/S 92 C.P.C. against revisionist No. 1/defendant No. 1 and other trustees. After grant of permission to institute and pursue the suit U/S 92 C.P.C. written statement was filed. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff No. 2 Hardayal Singh had expired on 22 -8 -2011 and plaintiff No. 1 moved application 95 -C for substitution of son of deceased plaintiff No. 2. The trial court vide impugned order dated 7 -9 -2012 has allowed the substitution application.

(3.) I have gone through the above cited case. It has been observed in the cited case that where the suit filed U/S 92 C.P.C. filed by two plaintiffs, one of the plaintiffs dies, other can continue the suit. Provisions of Order 22 C.P.C. cannot be availed by representative of deceased. It is only by virtue of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. that the court, if at all, can implead other persons as parties. Representative of deceased must prove his interest in the suit. The matter has to be tried and decided and mere allegation in a petition advancing claim is not prima facie proof of his interest in the trust.