MAHILA RAMKALI Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties on I.A.No.2659/2016 an application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) It is submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant No.1 Mahila Ramkali died on 17.04.2016. An application for substitution of legal representatives of Appellant No.1 has been moved by one Prashant, Son of Surendra Shrivastava and Nishant, Son of Surendra Shrivastava claiming to be the owner of the property of deceased appellant No.1 by virtue of the will executed by the appellant No.1 on 13.04.2016 and as such right to sue survives and, therefore, the appellants deserves to be substituted in place of deceased Appellant No.1.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance in support of his contentions on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2010 (2) MPLJ 304 (Suresh Kumar Bansal Vs. Krishna Bansal and another) to contend that the application for bringing L.Rs on record be allowed instead of relegating the matter to the Trial Court for an inquiry so that the delay in disposal of the appeal can be avoided.