SATRUGHAN LAL VERMA Vs. CHHOTE LAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 17.1.2014 in Title Suit No. 95 of 2008 whereby, petition under Order XXII, Rule 3 r/w. Sec. 151 C.P.C. has been allowed, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner is defendant No. 2 in Title Suit No. 95 of 2008. The suit was instituted by one Lakhan Lal Sharma for declaration of his right, title, interest and possession over the suit land comprised in Khata No. 622 (New) Plot Nos. 95 and 96 and over the land comprised in Khata No. 72, Plot Nos. 515, 516, 517, 518, 519 and 520 in Ward No. 1, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee. A challenge to sale deed dated 25.4.2008 registered by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 being null and void and not binding on the plaintiff has also been made in the suit. The plaintiff died on 7.7.2013 and thereafter, on 12.12.2013 one Chhote Lal Sharma filed an application for his substitution as plaintiff in the suit. The said Chhote Lal Sharma claimed himself the elder brother of the original plaintiff. Vide order dated 17.1.2014 the said Chhote Lal Sharma has been substituted in place of the original plaintiff in Title Suit No. 95 of 2008. Aggrieved, the defendant No. 2 has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Ananda Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, one Rajesh Kumar Sharma filed a petition on 20.8.2013 for his substitution as plaintiff however, the said petition was not pressed by him and in the meantime, the substituted plaintiff who is respondent in the present proceeding filed another application on 12.12.2013 which has been allowed. The respondent is not Class -I legal heir and successor of the deceased plaintiff and thus, petition under Order XXII, Rule 3 C.P.C. was not maintainable. It is contended that the petition dated 12.12.2013 was filed more than five months after the death of the original plaintiff namely, Lakhan Lal Sharma and thus, the suit had already abated. Since no application for setting aside the abatement was filed, Title Suit No. 95 of 2008 could not have been revived.

(3.) Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order substituting the respondent in place of the original plaintiff. He contended that the respondent is the own elder brother of the original plaintiff is not denied and therefore, his substitution in place of his own younger brother cannot be objected by the defendants.