BENEDITO GONSALVES Vs. CABIDO DA SE PREMACIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to an order dtd. 30/11/2022 passed by the trial Court. The application for bringing legal representatives of plaintiff No. 1 at Exh. D-84 was dismissed. The suit was filed for cancellation of the Deed of Perpetual Lease dtd. 9/3/1994 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2. The defendants raised defence in their written statements that the defendant No. 1 was the tenant of the suit property and, therefore, the issue of tenancy was reframed by this Court and defendant No. 2 was directed to move the Tribunal on reframed issue. The suit did not proceed. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No. 1 were brought on record. The order of the Tribunal was challenged in this Court. Even in this Court legal representatives of plaintiff No. 1 were brought on record. Upon decision on the issue of tenancy, when the hearing of the suit commenced, the plaintiff realised that the legal representatives of plaintiff No. 1 remained to be brought on record in the suit. An application was therefore made for bringing legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No. 1 on record. The trial Court by a reasoned order, which is impugned in this petition dismissed the application.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the order of the trial Court submitted that the proceedings before the trial Court remained stayed pending the determination of the issue of tenancy before the Tribunal and this Court in a collateral proceeding. The legal representatives of plaintiff No. 1 were in fact brought before the Tribunal as well as this Court. Post determination of the issue of tenancy upto this Court, when in the suit, the hearing commenced, it was realised that the legal representatives of plaintiff No. 1 were not brought on record. Hence the application.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and 3(Original defendant Nos. 2 and 3) vehemently opposed the application. It is submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is a well reasoned order and cannot be said to be perverse to warrant interference. It is further submitted that plaintiffs were well aware that legal representatives of plaintiff No. 1 were required to be brought on record and when the plaintiffs had taken steps to bring the legal representatives on record before the Tribunal and this Court, in which case, the approach on the part of the plaintiffs in not bringing the legal representatives in the pending suit was casual and callous. It is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that legal representatives of plaintiff No. 1 were brought on record in separate and distinct legal proceedings arising on an issue of determination of tenancy and therefore, merely because legal representatives are brought on record in those proceedings, will not by itself enure to the benefit of the plaintiffs in the pending suit. It is therefore submitted that the petition be dismissed.