Karan Singh Saini v. Baljeet Singh (Now Deceased) Through Its Lrs.
2014-08-01
VALMIKI J.MEHTA
body2014
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral):-- C.M. No. 12296/2014 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. + C.M.(M) No. 720/2014 and C.M. No. 12295/2014 (stay) 2. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are extraordinary powers and are exercised only when grave injustice is caused by the order of the court below. Orders which are passed allowing the application to bring on record the legal heirs ordinarily cannot be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. By the impugned order dated 18.3.2014, the legal heirs of the defendant No. 1, who died on 26.7.1998, were allowed to be brought on record by allowing the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The delay in filing the application was because of the fact that the death certificate and the details of the legal heirs were not filed till 4.2.2008, and thereafter immediately on 28.2.2008, the subject application was filed, and which has been allowed. 4. No doubt, the suit is pending since the year 1996, however, I do not have to look into the merits of the case because the impugned order only allows bringing on record the legal heirs of the defendant No. 1 and if the defendant No. 2/petitioner has a strong case on merits he will contest the same in accordance with law, however, that does not mean that the impugned order such as the one allowing bringing on record the legal heirs should be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. I may note that in any case there cannot be an issue of abatement of the suit on account of death of the defendant No. 1 because admittedly the defendant No. 2 is the son of the defendant No. 1, and he was already on record. Once, one legal heir of a deceased defendant is on record, the issue is only of addition of other legal heirs and not of abatement and which is another reason for this Court not to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Dismissed.