RAJ KUMARI Vs. PREM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Atam Parkashs son of Ram Baksh filed a suit for redemption of mortgage, which is being contested by the respondent. During the pendency the suit, Atam Parkash died. An application was filed by Krishna and Payal for being brought on record as they claimed themselves to be widow and minor daughter of the deceased. Shanti Devi also filed an application for the same purpose as she claimed herself to be mother of the deceased. On these applications, issues were framed and parties granted opportunity to produce evidence. Before these applications could be decided, the petitioner also riled an application for being impleaded as plaintiff in place of Atam Parkash. This application was declined by the trial court. The said order is now being impugned in the present revision petition.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view of that the order under revision cannot be sustained. The application of the petitioner was rejected summarily without affording him an opportunity to produce evidence. The petitioner was entitled to prove that she could be impleaded as plaintiff in place of Atam Parkash deceased, being his widow. From the order, I find that the applications filed by Krishna and Payal and Shanti for being brought on record as legal representatives are pending, and they have yet to prove their entitlement for the said purpose. The petitioner has also stated that succession certificate which was issued in favour of Krishna and Payal as stated on the application field by the petitioner. In the proceedings for grant of succession certificate, the petitioner has already made an application that the affidavit alleged to have made by her in those proceedings was forged one. Considering that the petitioner has a bona fide claim against other applicants who are claiming themselves to be legal representatives, the trial Court ought to have decided her application too along with the applications filed by the applicants.

(3.) At this stage, Mr. J.C. Nagpal, Advocate appearing for the respondents, states that after the motion hearing, the brief of the case was taken away from him by his clients, and therefore, he is not in a position to assist this Court and thus, may be permitted to withdraw. His prayer is allowed.