HARI SINGH Vs. MANGAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to this order are as follows :-

(2.) During the pendency of the appeal, Mangal Singh vendee- defendant died on 2nd May, 1965 at village Dhamot, leaving behind a son, Amrik Singh, a daughter, Harpal Kaur, and his widow, Gobind Kaur. Amarik Singh, the only son of the deceased, was already on the record as one of the defendant-vendees. The daughter, Harpal Kaur, was living in another village, Goh, with her husband. The son, Amrik Singh was in possession and enjoyment of the entire estate of the deceased. The plaintiff-appellant did not make any application within the period of limitation for bringing the daughter and the widow of the deceased on the record. It was only on 6th May, 1968, when the appeal came up for hearing before Gurdev Singh, J. that an objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that since all the legal representatives of Mangal Singh deceased had not been brought on record within the period of limitation, the appeal had abated.

(3.) Thereafter, on 9th May, 1968, the appellant made this Civil Misc. No. 1530-C of 1968 under Order 22, Rules 4, 9 and 11 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, praying that Harpal Kaur and Gobind Kaur be also brought on record as legal representatives of Mangal Singh deceased, and the son, Amrik Singh respondent, already on the record, be also shown as legal representative of Mangal Singh deceased. It was alleged that the appeal had not abated as the estate of Mangal Singh was sufficiently represented by his only son Amrik Singh, who was already on the record. It was added that Harpal Kaur, the daughter, and Govind Kaur, the widow of the deceased, were not brought on the record because the applicant bona fide believed that Amrik Singh was the only heir and legal representative of the deceased. The allegations in the application are supported by an affidavit of Hari Singh applicant.