(1.) THIS revision is filed against, the order passed by the trial Court whereby directions have been given to adduce evidence on the application under order 1 rule 10 CPC and for taking a 'Will' on record.
(2.) A civil suit for eviction was filed by Ramkatori Bai. Ramkatori Bai pleaded in her plaint that the suit premises is required bona fide for the need of her son Jagdamba Prasad. Written statement was filed by defendant No. 2 to 6 and defendant No. 1 was proceeded ex party. During trial, Ramkatori Bai died on 20.7.1998. After the death of Ramkatori Bai, an application under order 22 rule 3 CPC was filed on behalf of her son Jagdamba Prasad (petitioner in this revision).
(3.) TRIAL Court has passed orders that parties should produce evidence on this application. The only question involved in the case is whether the procedure adopted by trial Court is proper or improper ? It is an admitted position that Jagdamba Prasad is an heir of the deceased. Suit was filed for bona fide need of Jagdamba Prasad, son of the original plaintiff. Thus, the son is a legal representative under the law and there was no reason for trial Court to consider the application and defer the application for recording evidence. So far as ousting the other legal representatives by virtue of 'Will' is concerned, it is a dispute between the heirs of Ramkatori Bai and the tenants have no right to challenge the 'Will' or claim that other legal representative should to be brought on record. In an ejectment suit, Court has to satisfy that the Estate of deceased is represented. Unless 'Will' is disputed by other legal representatives, it is not open for tenant to challenge the 'Will'. The purpose of eviction suit will be lost if proceedings are protracted, if each interlecutory application is decided after recording evidence. From reading of the plaint itself it was apparent that the petitioner is the son of the deceased plaintiff. There was no reason to defer the application for recording evidence.