SHEO PRASAD Vs. PRATAP AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order dated 25.2.1986 whereby the First Addl. Judge to the Court of District Jucge, Chhindwara, while allowing applicant's prayer for being substituted as Legal Representative of late Smt. Punjya Bai, limited the purpose of substitution as such only to the extent of opposing the restoration application.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to this revision petition are that, late Smt. Punjya Bai had filed a civil suit against the non-applicants claiming declaration to the effect that the two sale-deeds exhibits D-1 and D-2, having been obtained from her by practising fraud, are void, illegal and inconsequential, and did not confer any right, title or interest on the non-applicants. This suit was decreed on 27.2.1978 against which the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 5 filed an appeal which was dismissed on default on 24.1.1984. Thereafter, an application for its restoration was filed which was registered as M.J.C. No. 9/84. During the pendency of this M.J.C. Smt. Punjya Bai breathed her last on 24.11.1984.

(3.) This applicant, Sheo Prasad, who is the son of late Punjya Bai's sister, filed an application for being substituted as a party in place of late Smt. Punjya Bai on the ground, that late Punjya Bai executed a will in his favour on 26.7.1983 bequeathing all her immoveable and moveable property to him. The learned Appellate Court while allowing the applicant's application in M.J.C. No. 9/84 for his substitution in place of late Smt. Punjya Bai has limited the purpose of substitution only to the extent of restoration case alone.