LAWS(PAT)-2004-12-1

RAM JANKI SAHKARI GIRIH NIRMAN SAMITI LTD Vs. MAKSUDPUR INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION IN NATURAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

Decided On December 08, 2004
SRI RAM JANKI SAHKARI GIRIH NIRMAN SAMITI LTD. Appellant
V/S
MAKSUDPUR INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION IN NATURAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two civil revision petitions are being heard and decided together as both of them have been filed by two different defendants against the same order dated 5.7.2003 passed in Title Suit No. 653 of 1987 by which the learned Sub-Judge IV, Patna, has allowed the petition of Opposite Party No. 1 under Order I, Rule 10, CPC and it was directed to be added as plaintiff in the suit.

(2.) The short fact of this case is that the aforesaid Title Suit No. 653 of 1987 was filed by Ram Kishore Prasad Narain Singh (original plaintiff) for declaration that he was a co-sharer to the extent of 1/6th share in the suit property and was in joint possession thereof and for other ancillary reliefs. However, the said sold original plaintiff died on 15.3.2001 but none of his Class-I, heirs come forward for being substituted nor any notice of the suit was sent to them. Later, on 11.6.2001 a petition under Order I, Rule 10, CPC was filed by O.P. No. 1, namely, Maksudpur Institute of Research and Education in Natural and Social Sciences (hereinafter in short 'the Institute') through its trustee Sri Ajay Singh, who was one of the sons of the deceased original plaintiff, for being impleaded in place of original plaintiff on the basis of a deed of assignment executed by him on 14.10.1999 in favour of the Institute. This petition has been allowed by the impugned order as mentioned above.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner of Civil revision No. 1680/2003 submits that after coming to know about the death of sole original plaintiff, it was incumbent upon the Court to send notices to his Class-I heirs and without doing so the Court was not justified in allowing the petition of the intervenes. He further claimed that no step for substitution was taken with respect to the Class-I heirs of the sole original plaintiff and hence the impugned order suffers from grave illegality and jurisdictional error.