SHAIL KUMAR DUTTA Vs. SANJEEV RATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist no.1 and revisionist no. 2-plaintiffs and one Bhupendra Kumar Dutta filed a SCC Suit (SCC Case No.18 of 2016) before the Trial Court against the respondent no. 1 to respondent no.6-defendants. The plaintiff no.2-Bhupendra Kumar Dutta died during the trial. After his death, one substitution application was filed by Narendra Kumar Bhandari, the revisionist no.3, stating that the deceased Bhupendra Kumar Dutta had executed a will of the suit property in his favour on 7/11/2020. The original will dtd. 7/11/2020 and the affidavit of its attesting witnesses Shail Kumar Dutta and R.S. Bhatia were filed with the substitution application. An another substitution application was filed on behalf of late Bhupendra Kumar Dutta's son's widow, her minor son and daughter of the deceased, respondent no.7, 8 and respondent no.9 respectively. Shail Kumar Dutta was cross-examined. After the inquiry, it was found by the Trial Court that suspicious circumstances existed regarding the execution of the said will and Mr. Narendra Kumar Bhandari did not appear in the inquiry to clarify the said suspicious circumstances, therefore, while allowing the substitution application, filed on behalf of the respondent no.7, respondent no.8 and respondent no.9, the Trial Court has dismissed the substitution application, filed by the revisionist no.3, vide impugned order dtd. 7/10/2022.

(2.) Heard Mr. B.P. Nautiyal (through video conferencing), learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohd. Matlub, learned counsel for the revisionists and Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bhupendra Bora, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7 to 9.

(3.) Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate, contended that when there are rival applications, one claiming under a will and the other as a legal heir, the proper course is to implead both of them as the legal representatives of the deceased.