SURAJ KARAN Vs. HARINARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 7.11.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereinafter 'the Board') dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners and upholding the order dated 14.8.2013 passed by the Assistant Collector Fast Track, Dudu District Jaipur (hereinafter 'the trial court') in two consolidated cases No. 08/2013 and 360/2010.

(2.) ONE Bhuli Devi was one of the defendants in one suit and the plaintiff in the other. The aforesaid two suits were consolidated. During the adjudication of the aforesaid two suits Bhuli Devi died on 14.10.2012. Two applications came to be filed; one -under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and another -under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC before the trial court for brining Bhuli Devi's legal representatives on record. Ramkaran & Ors. were the applicants in the application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC (in suit No. 340/2010) and Surajkaran under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC (in suit No. 306/2010). The trial court on consideration of the case of Ramkaran and others based on testamentary succession claimed under a registered will dated 24.7.2004 allowed the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and rejected the application filed by Surajkaran under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC vide order dated 14.8.2013. The order dated 14.8.2013 passed by the trial court was challenged unsuccessfully by Suraj Karan and others by way of a revision petition before the Board. Hence this petition.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that in impleading the respondents Ramkaran and others on the basis of a purported registered will dated 24.7.2004 executed by Bhuli Devi, the trial court as also the Board have negated the obligation of a Court to conduct the inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC where there is a dispute with regard to the legal representatives of the deceased litigant -in the capacity of the plaintiff/defendant as the case may be. It has been submitted that the purported registered will dated 24.7.2004 executed by Smt. Bhuli Devi (since deceased) in favour of Ramkaran and others is under challenge by way of a civil suit for cancellation of the registered will dated 24.7.2004 and consequently neither the trial court nor the Board could have relied upon the said will to implead Ramkaran & Ors. as parties in the two suits. Counsel submits that it was incumbent upon the trial court to determine the issue of right to impleadment as legal representatives between the consisting parties as the petitioners were agitating their right to impleadment as successors under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1956') by holding a regular inquiry based on evidence of the parties. It has been submitted that the provisions of Order 22 Rule 5 CPC are mandatory.