RAM KISHOR Vs. JAI SHIV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dtd. 27/3/2023 whereby the application under Order XXII Rule 3 r.w. Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed and the application under Order XXII Rule 9, CPC as preferred by the defendant for abatement of the suit has been rejected.

(2.) The arguments of counsel for the defendant-petitioner are three fold. Firstly, after the death of plaintiff Jai Shiv Singh, the landlord, no application for substitution of his legal representatives was filed within the prescribed time and hence, the suit abated. Secondly, only the wife, son and daughter of the deceased plaintiff Jai Shiv Singh have been sought to be substituted whereas the four sisters of Jai Shiv Singh are also his legal representatives and they also deserve to be impleaded/substituted in place of him. Thirdly, the suit property is an ancestral property and hence, the sisters of the deceased plaintiff, being the coparceners, would also fall in the category of legal representatives.

(3.) The Trial Court reached to a specific finding that plaintiff Jai Shiv Singh expired on 4/9/2021 and application under Order XXII Rule 3, CPC had been moved within a period of 90 days from the said date. Therefore, the application was very much within the limitation. So far as the impleadment of the sisters of the plaintiff is concerned, the learned Court below specifically concluded that they cannot be said to be the legal representatives in terms of law. The Court found that the wife, son and daughter of the plaintiff were very much surviving and had moved an application and hence, in terms of Order XXII Rule 3, CPC, only they can be said to be the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and therefore, permitted them to be taken on record.