AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners are the defendants and the instant Civil Misc. Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure-8) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.)-IV, Jamshedpur registered as T (P) Eviction Suit No.46 of 1993 whereby and whereunder the petition filed for substituting Sunita Devi as party-defendant in place of Sushila Devi Varshney/ original defendant No.1 has been allowed.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit was originally filed in the year 1993 in which Sushila Devi has appeared and filed written statement. Subsequently defendant No.1 died and was substituted by her son, Charu Chandra Varshney in place of original defendant No.1. The substitution petition for substituting Sunita Devi was filed in the year 2022 i.e. 18 years after the death of original defendant No.1.
It is contended that this was very much in the knowledge of plaintiff(s) in view of the written statement filed by said Charu Chandra Varshney on 22.09.2012 wherein it was disclosed that defendant No.1 had died leaving behind her husband and one daughter. The substitution petition has been filed on 18.11.2022.
Reliance has been placed in the case of Om Prakash Gupta @ Lalloowa (now deceased) & Ors. Vs. Satish Chandra (Now Deceased) in Civil Appeal No.13407 of 2024 with Om Prakash Gupta @ Lalloowa (now deceased) & Ors. Vs. Smt. Rooprani (Now Deceased) in Civil Appeal No.13408 of 2024 and also in Lanka Venkateswarlu (Dead) by LRS. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 363.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the O.P. No.4, and rightly so, that at no point of time, informatory petition under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC was filed disclosing the name of the legal heir and descendants of the original Defendant No.1. Written statement which was filed by the substituted defendant- Charu Chandra Varshney, there was no information with regard to name of the parties. The instant suit being filed for eviction, the Plaintiff cannot be credited with the knowledge about names and details of the legal heirs of the defendants unless there is disclosure about the name of the legal heirs, mere statement that deceased was succeeded by one daughter is not sufficient compliance with the mandate of law as cast upon the Defendants, for making such disclosure. Petitioner cannot be permitted to make capital from his fault. Consequently, since the information was deliberately withheld, therefore, the plaintiff(s) was precluded from filing an appropriate substitution petition.
This is not a fit case for interfering with the impugned order, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The instant CMP being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.