BHAGWATI DEVI AND ORS. Vs. HARGOVIND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellants under Order XXII, Rules 3 & 9 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Mr. Ayush Aditya, learned counsel, for the petitioners, has submitted that during pendency of the present appeal, appellant Bhagwati Devi, widow of late Bhagwati Prasad Jalan, died on 16.3.2015, leaving behind her sons and daughters, her legal heirs and successors as mentioned in para -7 of the supporting affidavit. It is submitted that legal heirs namely sons were brought on record by order dated 16.10.2014 and the prayer for substitution of legal heirs and successors namely at Sl. Nos. 5 to 8 of para -3 were rejected by order dated 16.10.2014. Learned counsel has contended that it would be evident from the order dated 16.10.2014 that the prayer of substitution of the daughters of original appellant late Bhagwati Prasad Jalan was rejected on the ground that they are not legally entitled to be substituted against the death of their father in view of the provisions of Sec. 2(h) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000. It is argued by the learned counsel that the present application has been filed under Order XXII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and words used in Rule 3 is.......the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit.

(2.) Per contra, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel, for the respondent, has argued that the appellants at Sl. No. 5 to 8 of the present interlocutory application are the married daughters and in terms of Sec. 2(h) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 they are not the legal heirs/legal representatives. That similar prayer was rejected by order dated 16.10.2014 and the present application has been filed only with an intent to delay the hearing of the appeal. It is submitted that the application is also barred by the principle of Res Judicata and is fit to be rejected as not maintainable.

(3.) Heard. Sec. 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: - -