Himani Pande & Another vs State And Others

Lok Pal Singh, J

Civil revision is directed against the order dated 27.07.2019, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Almora whereby an application, paper no. 125-A filed by the revisionists/plaintiffs to substitute the legal heirs of defendant no. 15-Smt. Manjula Pande (respondent no. 15 herein) has been rejected on the ground that legal representatives of defendant no. 15 have already brought on record.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that all the representatives of defendant no. 15 are already on record except Mr. Himanshu Pande and Ms. Madhuri Pande.

Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that learned Civil Judge (SD) Almora has rejected the substitution application paper no. 125A on the ground that the parties, sought to be impleaded in suit, are already arrayed as party-respondent in the suit. It has been further observed that the said application has been moved to linger on the proceedings of the suit.

Perusal of the substitution application, memo of the parties as well as the impugned order would reveal that some of the legal representatives of defendant no. 15 are on record except Mr. Himanshu Pande and Ms. Madhuri Pande. Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C. provides that all the legal heirs of deceased persons should be brought on record. Mr. Himanshu Pande and Ms. Madhuri Pande who are the legal representatives of defendant no. 15 should have also been substituted, as they are necessary party to the suit.

Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that without going into the controversy whether Mr. Himanshu Pande and Ms. Madhuri Pande are the legal representatives of defendant no. 15, this Court may allow the substitution application to the extent that Mr. Himanshu Pande and Ms. Madhuri Pande may also be impleaded as defendant in the suit, so that suit may proceed expeditiously.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the court below has committed illegality in recording the finding that legal representatives of defendant no. 15 are already in record.

In the light of the above, impugned order dated 27.07.2019 is hereby set aside. The civil revision is allowed. Substitution application filed by the revisionist/ plaintiff is allowed in part with the observation that Mr. Himanshu Pande and Ms. Madhuri Pande shall be substituted as defendant no. 15/1 and 15/2 in the suit. They shall be served by both ways or through special messenger so that the case may proceed expeditiously. The trial court is further directed to decide the suit expeditiously and unnecessary adjournment to the parties shall be avoided.