AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—Heard, the legal representatives were brought on record in the rent petition and the counsel for the LRs made a request to file written statement on behalf of the LRs. The Original respondent had already filed the written statement. The learned Rent Controller declined to accept the request of counsel for the L.R.s to permit him to file a fresh written statement on behalf of the L.R.s. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that no written application was given in this regard.
The law on this point is already covered in the case of Major Rajbir Singh and Anr. v. Surinder Kaur and Ors.994 P.L.J. 464. It has been held therein as under :-
"They acquire no better right or title than the one the deceased had. They are bound by the pleadings of the deceased and steps taken by him in the progress of the suit prior to his death. No right accrues to the plaintiffs defendants or their legal representatives to amend the pleadings simply on the substitution of the legal representatives except to continue the suit from that stage. They or any one of them will get a right to amend the pleadings only after seeking specific permission of the Court under Order 6 Rule 17of the Code or any law providing for the same. Giving effect to the order of substitution of legal representatives is only a ministerial/administrative act which has to be carried out by the Court Officers or by the Presiding Officer himself or in any such like manner. Such an order gives no right to the plaintiffs, an order directing the plaintiffs, defendants or the legal representatives to file amended pleadings."
In view of the above settle law, this revision petition is without merit and deserves to be dismissed.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed.