J R ANSARI Vs. HARIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31. 7. 2001 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur allowing the application of the non-petitioner under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code') and rejecting the application of the petitioners under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the non-petitioner had filed a suit for eviction against the predecessor in interest of the petitioners on the ground of personal necessity. After trial, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 7. 8. 1995. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the non-petitioner preferred the appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 7. 8. 1995. During the pendency of the appeal, the tenant-predecessor in interest of the petitioners/respondents died on 6. 2. 2001. THE petitioners filed an application under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code to substitute the petitioners only in his place while the non-petitioner/appellant filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code to implead the widow, son and 8 daughters of the deceased respondent. THE appellate court allowed the application of the non-petitioner/appellant taking all the legal heirs on record and rejected the application of the petitioners only to implead the petitioners as legal heirs. Hence these revision petitioners.

(3.) A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash Chandra vs. Union of India & Ors (1), considered the meaning of word "ordinary" and held that it means "in the large majority of cases but not invariably".