POONAM Vs. PRAHLAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 3/10/2024 (Annexure P-3) passed in Civil Suit No.2055 of 2015 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC for substitution of legal heirs of deceased plaintiff No.1.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order would show that the application filed by the petitioner to be impleaded under Order 22 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure as legal representatives of the deceased-plaintiff No.1 Smt. Asharfi Devi, was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the suit had been filed for seeking relief with respect to 'Janhit Seva Charitable Trust' and that plaintiff No.1 had claimed herself to be the whole time Trustee in the said Trust and had expired on 7/8/2019 and since the suit had been filed by plaintiff No.1, being Trustee in the said Trust so her interest came to an end on her death and her legal heirs have no legal right to continue the present suit on her behalf with respect to her interest in the said Trust. It was observed that it was settled proposition of law that the interest of a Trustee does not devolve upon his legal heirs, rather, his interest in the Trust devolves only upon the surviving Trustees and that it was not the case of the petitioner herein/applicant that the petitioner herein/applicant was appointed or nominated as new Trustee of the Trust. It was observed that, in case, the said plaintiff No.1 had filed a suit in her individual capacity and not as a Trustee, then, the petitioner could have been treated as a legal representative. It is the said order which has been challenged before this Court by the petitioner. It would be relevant to mention that in the said suit, plaintiff No.2 is Mahinder Sharma who is son of plaintiff No.1-Ashrafi Devi and is also a Trustee in the Trust and the said plaintiff No.2 is pursuing the said case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being the daughter should be impleaded as legal representative of plaintiff No.1 so that the said legal representative can purse the suit filed by the plaintiffs on behalf of plaintiff No.1. It is further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants/respondents, in case, the daughter of plaintiff No.1 is permitted to pursue the case on behalf of plaintiff No.1. It is further submitted that since the petitioner does not have any adverse interest against plaintiff No.1, thus, it would be in the interests of justice to permit the petitioner to pursue the said suit on behalf of plaintiff No.1.