KALI RAM Vs. MANGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 21.5.1996 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jagadhri, who dismissed the application of the LRs of Telu Ram under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC as a result of that the suit filed by Telu Ram was dismissed in default.

(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner:- Telu Ram son of Asha Ram deceased filed a suit for declaration against Mangat Ram to the effect that he is the owner of the property fully described in the head note of the plaint. He further prayed that directions be issued to the defendant to restore the vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff. The suit was contested. During the pendency of the suit Telu Ram plaintiff died on 5.3.1992. According to the applicant/petitioners, they are the LRs of deceased Telu Ram plaintiff and there is no other LR of said Telu Ram. In these circumstances they made an application for impleading them as LRs in place of Telu Ram plaintiff. Notice of the application was given to the respondent/defendant, who filed the reply and denied the allegations. According to the respondent/defendant Telu Ram died in February 1992 and not in March 1992. Moreover, the applicants are not the LRs of Telu Ram. In the alternative it was pleaded by the respondent that the application is not within the limitation and requires dismissal.

(3.) THE High Court has amended Order 22 Rule 3 CPC vide Punjab and Haryana High Court Amendment dated 25.2.1992 w.e.f. 4.2.1992 and sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Order 22 CPC reads as follows :-