MALO DEVI Vs. MEERA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 31.01.2019 passed in T.S. No.42 of 2003 has been challenged by which petition filed by the plaintiff dated 05.01.2019 under Order XXII Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

(2.) The brief facts of the case in the writ petition is that a suit has been filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners herein, being T.S. No.42 of 2003 and in course of its pendency, the defendant no.4 has died on 14.06.2015 and thereafter on 30.07.2015 the defendants under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC furnished information that the deceased- defendant no.4 (Chhotelal Chik Baraik) has died on 14.06.2015 leaving behind his widow namely Bihans Devi-defendant no.3 and daughter Pratibha Devi and in pursuance to the aforesaid declaration furnished by the defendant no.3, a petition under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC has been filed for substituting the legal representative of the deceased-defendant no.4 which was allowed and defendant no.4(A) namely Pratibha Devi has been substituted as legal representative of defendant no.4, but subsequently the plaintiffs/petitioners came to know after due enquiry that the deceased-defendant no.4 has died issueless and defendant no.4 (A) is not the married daughter of the deceased-defendant no.4 rather she is married daughter of one Chamra Baraik of village Sishi Karam Toli, district Gumla and her mother's name is Dulari Devi and therefore, a petition has been filed on 05.01.2019 by the petitioners/plaintiff under Order XXII Rule 5 of the CPC to set up an enquiry for determination, as to whether defendant no.4 (A) is daughter of deceased-defendant no.4 on the ground that the defendants have fraudulently given wrong information under Order XXII Rule 10A of the CPC to that effect the trial court has rejected the same, against which the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The petitioners' ground for assailing the aforesaid order is that Pratibha Devi has been impleaded as defendant no.4(A) by substituting defendant no.4 on the information being furnished by the defendant no.3 to that effect by filing a petition under Order XXII Rule 10 A of the CPC, but subsequently it came in the knowledge of the petitioners that some mischief has been played by the defendant no.3 in furnishing the wrong declaration for impleadment of the said Pratibha Devi, who actually was not the legal heir of the defendant no.4 but the trial court when called upon to conduct an enquiry in this regard, has rejected the aforesaid petition vide impugned order, therefore, the same suffers from infirmity.