GAYATRIDEVI @ KUSHUMLATA Vs. SURENDRA NATH BANDIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of parties, matter is finally heard. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the order dated 04.01.2012 is called in question, whereby an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC was allowed and legal representative/widow Gayatri Devi is directed to be impleaded. This is challenged by Gayatri Devi / petitioner on the ground that although her application is allowed, the other legal representatives are not impleaded.

(2.) By placing reliance on Annexure P -3 dated 07.09.2011, Shri Gupta submits that a request was made to implead the daughters and son of deceased Murari Lal with a request that they are necessary parties. Their names were also disclosed in the said application. The same was followed by yet another application wherein address of those persons were also given. Shri Gupta submits that the Court below has not taken pains to address on this issue as to whether other persons, including daughters and adopted son, are required to be impleaded.

(3.) PER Contra, Shri P.C. Chandil, Advocate for the other side submits that as per : AIR 1963 SC 468 [Kanji Manji Vs. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay] (Para 5 and 7), : 1991 JLJ 119 [Kanhaiyalal Vs. Shri Ram Singh] and : AIR 1971 SC 742 [Mahabir Prasad Vs. Jage Ram] in a case of joint tenancy if one tenant has been impleaded as a party respondent, that is sufficient and all of them are not required to be impleaded.