DARSHAN KUMAR Vs. CHALLO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer of the present petitioner that the suit should have been dismissed as the plaintiff had transferred the properly by way of gift to Utttum Chand stands declined. Prayer of Utam Chand to be both on record as pailntiff stands allowed. It is these direction given by the trial court which are subject matter of challenge in the (sic) petition.

(2.) ONE Utam Chand is claiming to be done of the suit property. The suit was filled by Choola Davi prefered a suit for mandatory injection and declaration that she is the owner of building known as Gourimal Sant Ram Dharam Shala and that the defendend be injuncted from interferring with the ownership rights and mandatory injeuntions was also sought calling upon the defendends to remove the gate and wall reservior raised by him .It is in the suit an application was prefferd by Utam Chand he stated that whatever right title or intrest in the properly vested in Challo Davi stood gifted to him in his capacity as done. He wanted to be substituted on the record as the plaintiff. This application has been allowed the prayer of the defended for the dismissal of the suit has been rejected. It is the decision given by the trail court as noticed above which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

(3.) AFTER having gone through the pleadings of the parties i am the opinion that the trial court has rightly exercised jurisdiction under order 22R 10 CPC. The trial court was competent to grant relief to continue the suit when it was shown that during the pendency of the suit there was assignment creation or devolution of an intrest on Utam Chand who sought to continue with the suit sub rule (l)of rule 10 order 22 CPC for facility of refrence is reproduced below: