AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.S. Sanjay Gowda, J
In a suit for mandatory injunction on the death of the plaintiff, applications were filed to bring the plaintiff’s L.Rs. on record. This application was opposed by the second defendant on the ground that his wife Madhuri was also one of the L.R. of the plaintiff and she also ought to have been impleaded.
The Trial court has taken the view that there was a compromise petition, as a result of which, the wife of the second defendant was not necessary to be brought on record as L.R. of the deceased plaintiff.
In my view, the impugned order, by which only one of the L.R. of the deceased plaintiff was brought on record cannot be said to be in any way improper. However, the wife of the second defendant being also an L.R. of the deceased plaintiff, notwithstanding any compromise decree that may have been entered into between her and of the other L.R., it would be appropriate to reserve liberty to the wife of the second defendant to make an application to come on record.
It is to be stated here that under the provisions of the Order XXII rule 4, if a right to sue survives, it would be necessary to substitute the deceased plaintiff by his or her L.Rs. The question as to whether the L.Rs. have right in the subject matter of the suit or not, is altogether different issue which can be adjudicated after the L.R. is brought on record.
In that view of the matter, the Trial Court is directed to consider the application, if any, filed by the wife of the second defendant in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date on which the application is filed.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed off.