SAPA MAHALAXMI Vs. SAPA LINGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 125 of 1994 of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Berhampur. Her application to depute a Survey Knowing Commissioner being rejected by the trial Court, petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 18 of 1996, which is pending in the Court of 2nd Addl. District Judge, Berhampur. As stated by the petitioner, after the death of the original plaintiff, i.e., Sappa Simadri Patra, she was substituted in his place on her application which was allowed by the Court below on 10.3.1997. When the matter stood thus, on 30.4.1997 opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and one Sappa Prakash Rao described as son of Late S. Adinarayanan filed an application under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'the Code') for their addition in the revision as the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner Late Sappa Simadri Patro. That application was allowed by the 2nd Additional District judge, Berhampur, and as against that the petitioner has filed this civil revision.

(2.) IT is the settled principle of law that the provision of Order 22 of the Code does not apply to a revision. If any person claims to be the legal representative of the deceased petitioner, the proper forum to move such application is the court where the suit or the appeal is pending. If at the stage of consideration of such application the trial or the appellate court finds that there is resistance to the prayer for substitution on the ground of locus -standi, i.e., as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of that deceased party, then such question shall be determined by the Court in accordance with Rule 5 of Order 22 of the Code. Any order passed by the Court ignoring the law cannot have the backing of law.