Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 477 (UTT)

SHRI KRIPAL SINGH v. TRILOK FARMS PVT. LTD.

2012-08-14

B.S.VERMA

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Oral) This revision under Section 115 C.P.c. is directed against the order dated 10-7-2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun in Original Suit No. 148 of 2005, Mis Trilok Farms Pvt. Limited Vs. Virendra Kumar Goyal and others. 2. By the order impugned, the amendment application (paper no. 74-Al, and the delay condonation application (paper no.72-C2) have been disposed of. The amendment application has been allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5001- and the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 has been directed to carry out the amendments within a period of three days. 3. A suit bearing Suit No. 148 of 2005 has been instituted by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 M/s. Trilok Farms Ltd. Against defendants Virendra Kumar Goyal and seven others for declaration, mandatory injunction and for possession. In the plaint, the plaintiff has mentioned the role of defendant no.3 quite distinct from that of defendant no.8. 4. From a perusal of the record, it reveals that the applicant- defendant no.8 Gaurav Goyal, son of late Vinod Kumar Goyal moved an appl ication paper no. 71-A purporting to be under Order XXll, Rule 4 C.P.C. before trial Court stating therein that in the suit Om Prakash Goyal lHUF) through Karta Sri Vinod Kumar Goyal had been impleaded as defendant no. 8 to the suit and that late Sri Vinod Kumar Goyal was the Karta of the HUF and that said Vinod Kumar Goyal has expired on 30.11.2008 leaving behind him, his wife Smt. Rashmi Goyal, the applicant and his younger brother Sri Rahul Goyal as his heirs. It was also stated that the applicant being the eldest surviving male member of the H U F has become the Karta of Om Prakash Goyal (HUF) and is managing the property and prayed that the plaintiff be directed to carry out necessary amendment in the pleadings. 5. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun heard the parties on the application paper no. 71- A and by order dated 15-5-2012 allowed the application observing that the Karta Sri Vinod Kumar had died on 30-11-2008 leaving behind him Smt. Rashmi Goyal, applicant Gaurav Goyal and his brother Rahul Goyal as legal heirs and directed the plaintiff to incorporate the amendments within seven days. 6. 71- A and by order dated 15-5-2012 allowed the application observing that the Karta Sri Vinod Kumar had died on 30-11-2008 leaving behind him Smt. Rashmi Goyal, applicant Gaurav Goyal and his brother Rahul Goyal as legal heirs and directed the plaintiff to incorporate the amendments within seven days. 6. It also appears that the plaintiff M/s Trilok lFarms Pvt. Ltd. in compliance of the order dated 15-5-2012, moved an amendment application paper no. 74-AI to amend the plaint to implead the legal heirs of the deceased Vinod Kumar Goyal as mentioned in the said application. The learned trial Court by the impugned order dated 10-7-2012 has allowed the amendment application on payment of cost of Rs. 500/-, which gave rise to the present revision, which has been filed by the defendant no.3 Kripal Singh. 7. At the outset, it may be mentioned here that the order dated 15-5-2012 has not been challenged by the revisionist. 8. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. A. Rab appearing for the revisionist has contended that the application for substitution was moved by the applicant Gaurav Goyal, claiming himself as Karta of Om Prakash (HUF) being elder son of the deceased Vinod Kumar Goyal. He also disclosed that Sri Vinod Kumar Goyal had expired on 30-11-2008 leaving behind him, his wife Smt. Rashrni Gooyal, the applicant Gaurav Goyal and younger brother Rahul Goyal as his legal heirs. This application was moved on 13.3.2012. Therefore, only the name of the applicant Gaurav Goyal should have been substituted in the array of parties to the suit. 9. As mentioned earlier, the application moved under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC was allowed after hearing the parties and the learned trial Court by order dated 15-5-2012, directed the plaintiff to substitute all the legal heirs, namely Smt. Rashmi Goyal, the applicant Gaurav Goyal and younger brouther Rahul Goyal in the plaint and in compliance of that order, the amendment application (paper no. 74A) was moved before the court below, which was allowed by order dated 10-7-2012. 10. The contention of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionist, that the order impugned is not tenable, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the applicant Gaurav Goyal, one of the legal heirs of the deceased Vinod Kumar Goyal. who represented defendant no. 74A) was moved before the court below, which was allowed by order dated 10-7-2012. 10. The contention of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionist, that the order impugned is not tenable, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the applicant Gaurav Goyal, one of the legal heirs of the deceased Vinod Kumar Goyal. who represented defendant no. 8, moved an application under Order XXII, Rule 4 C.P.C. disclosing therein the factum of death of deceased Vinod Kumar Goyal and claimed his right to sue in the suit. Prayer was made to direct the plaintiff to make necessary amendments in the plaint. The application was allowed by the trial court by order dated 15-5-2012, but this order has not been assailed by the defendant no.3-revisionist herein, rather the subsequent order dated 10.7.2012 has been assailed. 11. It is also pertinent to mention here that the revisionist has nowhere claimed that he was one of the legal heirs of the deceased Vinod Kumar Goyal. Moreover, by the order dated 10-7-2012, the applicant Gaurav Goyal. who had moved the application under Order XXII, Rule 4 CPC before the trial Court, whose application was allowed by order dated 15-5-2012 could be an aggrieved person. The revisionist herein has not stated any reason that any prejudice is being caused to the right or the interest of the revisionist in the said suit by passing the order dated 10-7-2012. In addition to the above, no such ground has been taken in the revision petition that the order dated 10-7-2012 as has been passed by the trial court would even adversely affect the merits of the suit by substituting all the legal heirs of deceased Vinod Kumar Goyal. 12. made above, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned in allowing the amendment application moved by the plaintiff, which was made pursuant to earlier order dated 15-5-2012. The revision petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed outright. 13. The revision is dismissed. Costs easy. 14. All pending applications stand disposed of.