LAWS(MPH)-2014-6-18

RAJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. SHANTI RAGHUVANSHI

Decided On June 20, 2014
RAJ KUMAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
Shanti Raghuvanshi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenges the order dated 6.5.2014 passed in Civil Suit No. 16A/2001 by Additional District Judge, Guna.

(2.) THE petitioner/plaintiff No. 2 along with four other plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was registered as Civil No. 16A/2001. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 151 CPC, Annexure P/5. It is urged in this application that the defendant No. 3 Kesarbai expired on 11.1.2002 and plaintiff No. 2 is her legal representative. Because of death of defendant No. 3, her name be deleted from the array of defendants and since plaintiff No. 2, a legal representative is already on record, necessary orders be passed. This application is opposed by the defendants by filing reply on 3.2.2002 (Annexure P/6). The court below without deciding this application passed the judgment and decree on 6.2.2003. This judgment is called in question before this Court in First Appeal No. 96/2003. This Court set aside the judgment and decree with certain directions and directed the court below to redecide the suit in accordance with law. In turn, the court below decided the said application filed u/S. 151 CPC (Annexure P/5) by impugned order dated 6.5.2014. The court below opined that the petitioner is not legal representative of Kesarbai.

(3.) PER Contra, Shri D.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 6, supported the order. By drawing attention of this Court on the pleadings before the trial court and deposition of petitioner, it is contended that there is no perversity in the order impugned. The order is in consonance with the judgments of Supreme Court. He further submits that there is no procedural flaw in the order. In absence of any such procedural flaw, jurisdictional error or perversity, no interference is warranted in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. He submits that this Court is not required to act as 'a bull in the china shop'.