DAMODAR MUKHIYA Vs. CIVIL JUGE JD PUSHKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions have been filed against the order by which one Munna Lal @ Munna Khan has been ordered to be substituted, as the legal representative of deceased plaintiff Balkishan @ Kishan Gopal @ Balakdas.

(2.) KISHAN Gopal instituted two separate suits, from which these writ petitions arise, for restraining the respondent No.3, as mentioned in the prayer in the suit in respect of the wall of the temple and in respect of the land in which the former Mahant Shri Ratangiri was cremated and a tomb has been erected on the aforesaid site of the land, which Balakdas claimed to be his personal property. During the pendency of these two suits Balakdas plaintiff died and an application for substitution of his legal representatives was filed by the present petitioners-Damodar Lal Mukhiya, as son of the deceased plaintiff and Smt. Shanti Devi, as wife of the deceased plaintiff in both these writ petitions.

(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the facts and circumstance of the case it cannot be said that reasonable opportunity and time was granted to the petitioners after 22.08.2005 when the reply was filed by the respondents to enable the petitioners to produce before the Court the relevant material and also that no enquiry, as envisaged under Order 22 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. was conducted by the learned trial Court. I have gone through the aforesaid material, which is available in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3326/2006. THE aforesaid facts are not in dispute.