BABUBHAI KIKABHAI PATEL Vs. LAXMIBEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Utpal Panchal on behalf of the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar with learned Advocate Mr. Parv Gupta on behalf of the respondent No.2.

(2.) By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the learned 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, dtd. 11/4/2022 below Exh. 158 in Special Civil Suit No. 593 of 2012, whereby the present respondent No.2 is joined as a party in the said civil suit.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Panchal for the petitioner would submit that the original plaintiff was owner of a parcel of land bearing Revenue Survey No. 276 situated at village Hazira, District Surat, and whereas the present petitioner had purchased the said land from the original plaintiff vide a registered sale deed dtd. 3/2/1999. Learned Advocate would submit that 13 years after the said sale, the original land owner had filed a civil suit being Special Civil Suit No. 593 of 2012, whereby the registered sale deed was sought to be cancelled. It is submitted by the learned Advocate that during pendency of the said suit, the original plaintiff had expired on 1/10/2021 and whereas according to the learned Advocate, the suit had abated thereafter, more particularly since the original plaintiff did not have any legal heirs. It is submitted that vide an application Exh. 158 dtd. 6/11/2021, the respondent No.2 as trustee of the respondent No.2-Trust had preferred an application for being joined as legal representative of the original plaintiff, more particularly contending that vide a registered Will dtd. 22/5/1995, the original plaintiff had bequeathed the property in question in favour of the said temple trust and whereas on account of the fact the said applicant- respondent No.2 herein would be interested in the outcome of the suit, and therefore the applicant-respondent No.2 herein be joined as legal representative. Learned Advocate would submit that while the present petitioner had contested the said application, yet without appreciating the contention of the present petitioner in its proper perspective, vide the impugned order dtd. 11/4/2022 the learned Civil Court had joined the present respondent No.2 as legal representative of the original plaintiff in the suit in question.