JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against the order dated 4.11.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.),Beawar, whereby the trial court had taken on record the son and married daughters of the original defendant Smt. Chanda Devi after her death in the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. 2. Heard learned counsel Mr. JP Gupta for the petitioner plaintiff. Nobody appears for the respondent No.2-original defendant though duly served. 3. In the instant case, it appears that initially the suit was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the tenant Smt. Chanda Devi widow of Shri Chhotu Ji. During the pendency of the suit, the said Smt. Chanda Devi expired and therefore, the petitioner-plaintiff moved an application for brining on record the son of said Smt. Chanda Devi stating interalia that the said son was staying with the deceased at the time of her death, and that the daughters named Naurati and Dropati were already married and staying at their in-laws places at Kekri and Hyderabad respectively and therefore only the son Devendra was required to be substituted in place of the original defendant. The said application was resisted by said son Shri Devendra, the respondent No.2 herein. The trial court vide impugned order dated 4.11.2009 directed the son and two daughters to be taken on record in place of deceased tenant Chanda Devi. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the other suit filed by the petitioner plaintiff seeking eviction of the tenant Smt. Chanda Devi, the court had substituted only the son Devendra of said Smt. Chanda Devi after her death and in the instant suit filed for recovery of arrears of rent, the trial court has directed that the two married daughters also be taken on record as the legal heirs of said Smt.Chanda Devi. According to him, both the daughters of Chanda Devi were staying at their in-laws places, as specifically stated in the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC, and the said fact has not been denied by the respondent No.2 in his reply. He also submitted that the respondent No.2 had taken false contention that the married daughters were also residing along with Smt.Chanda Devi at the time of her death with a view to prolong the proceedings. 5. He also submitted that the respondent No.2 had taken false contention that the married daughters were also residing along with Smt.Chanda Devi at the time of her death with a view to prolong the proceedings. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and to the documents on record, it transpires that though the petitioner had specifically stated that the two daughters were staying at their in-laws places at Kekrai and Hyderabad, the said fact was not specifically denied by respondent-defendant in his reply and only a vague averment was made to the effect that the said two daughters and the son of the Smt.Chanda Devi were residing in suit premises along with the deceased tenant Chanda Devi at the time of her death. In absence of specific denial in the reply, this court finds substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that such a contention was raised by the defendant only with a view to prolong the suit proceedings. The present petition has also not been contested by the respondent-defendant by filing appearance in his behalf and therefore the averments made in the present petition remain unchallenged. In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 6. In view of the above, the order dated 4.11.2009 passed by the trial court is set aside and it is directed that only the respondent No.2 Devendra son of original defendant Smt.Chanda Devi shall be substituted in her place in the suit. Petition stands allowed accordingly.Petition allowed. *******