Hans Raj vs Om Dutt and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated 19.3.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 3, Hamirpur in C.M.A. No. 40/2009 in Civil Suit No. 344/2001.

Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that Respondents-Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ''Plaintiff'' for convenience sake) instituted a suit for declaration in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hamirpur. Inder Paul, one of the Plaintiffs, died on 15.7.2003. An application was preferred by Sandhia Devi under Order 22 Rule 3 and 9 (2) of the CPC for bringing on record legal representatives of Plaintiff No. 2 Inder Paul vide C.M.A No. 40/2009. Reply was filed by the Petitioner. Learned trial court framed issues on 28.2.2008. The application was allowed on 19.3.2009. Hence, the present petition.

Mr. Rama Kant Sharma has strenuously argued that the order dated 19.3.2009 is without jurisdiction. He then argued that delay in filing the application has not been explained satisfactorily.

Mr. Neeraj Maniktala has supported the order dated 19.3.2009.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings as well as record carefully.

Plaintiff No. 2 Inder Paul died on 15.7.2003. Sandhia Devi is the only legal representative of late Sh. Inder Paul. According to the averments contained in the application, she was not aware about the pendency of the suit filed by her husband. She came to know about the pendency of the suit in the last week of November, 2007. She was informed by Plaintiff No. 1 Om Dutt. She is residing in village Barota, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. The suit was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hamirpur. She filed an application immediately after acquiring knowledge of the pendency of the suit for substituting her as legal representative of deceased Plaintiff. Trial court framed issues on 28.2.2008. Sandhia Devi appeared as a witness. She has reiterated the stand taken in the application. Petitioner appeared as RW-1. According to him, Sandhia Devi knew about the pendency of the suit. He has also deposed that the applicant was literate. However, this has not been substantiated. Sandhia Devi is a rustic villager and she had been residing in Village Barota, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. She was not aware about the pendency of the case in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hamirpur. She was apprised about the pendency of the case by Plaintiff No. 1 in the last week of November, 2007. The application has been filed on 18.12.2007. Learned Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence brought on record by the parties. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any irregularity in the order dated 19.3.2009 passed by 4 the trial court and as such there is no need to interfere with the impugned order.

Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.