VIJETA ARORA Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have assailed the order dated 18.05.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga, vide which the application filed by the petitioners for substituting the LRs of Bal Kishan (deceased) was dismissed.

(2.) Bal Kishan died on 29.11.2016, leaving behind Neelam Rani (widow) and Shriya Sharma (daughter) as his legal heirs/representatives who have succeeded his estate. Two more suits were pending before the trial Court. Civil Suit No.555 of 2013 was pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga wherein Bal Kishan was plaintiff No.3. Legal representatives of Bal Kishan were ordered to be brought on record for the 1 of 3 purpose of pursuing the litigation vide order dated 13.12.2016. Similarly in Civil Suit No.554 of 2013. legal representatives of Bal Kishan (plaintiff No.3) were ordered to be brought on record vide order dated 13.12.2016. Both the aforesaid suits were pending before the same Court. Third suit i.e. present suit in question, the application was resisted by the defendants themselves by filing an evasive reply.

(3.) In view of Order 22 Rule 2-A CPC, every Advocate appearing in a case who becomes aware of the death of the party to the litigation must give information about the death of that party to the Court and to the person who is dominus litis (plaintiff).