Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 573 (RAJ)

Dinesh Kumar v. Lrs. of Chunnilal

2020-07-20

ARUN BHANSALI

body2020
ORDER 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.2.2020 passed by Additional District Judge, Churu, Camp Sardarsahar, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. 2. The suit for eviction and mesne profit was filed by one Chunni Lal against Shyam Sunder and Manna Lal. During pendency of the suit Chunni Lal expired and an application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC was filed by Govind Ram based on a Will said to have been executed by Chunni Lal in his favour. The said application came to be allowed by the trial court, whereby, Govind Ram was impleaded as legal representative of deceased Chunni Lal. Whereafter the petitioner on an application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC was impleaded as a defendant to the suit in the year 2005 based on a Will said to have been executed by Chunni Lal in his favour. 3. Now on 19.11.2019, the present application was filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC inter alia on the ground that plaintiff Govind Ram has not obtained probate of the Will in his favour and that once the application filed by the petitioner for impleadment has been accepted, the cause of action of the plaintiff has come to an end. 4. The trial court holding that obtaining of probate was not necessary and that application was filed with delay, rejected the application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC could be filed at any stage and that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application. Submissions were made that once a Will exists in favour of the petitioner, the continuance of suit by the plaintiff is not justified and, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 7. Admittedly, the suit was filed by Chunni Lal and after his death, based on a Will Govind Ram was impleaded as plaintiff and the present suit is directed against Shyam Sunder and Manna Lal for eviction. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 7. Admittedly, the suit was filed by Chunni Lal and after his death, based on a Will Govind Ram was impleaded as plaintiff and the present suit is directed against Shyam Sunder and Manna Lal for eviction. The impleadment of petitioner on an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC and filing of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC after about 14 years of such impleadment appears apparently in aid of the other defendants, who are facing eviction. 8. In case, there is a dispute pertaining to the legacy of deceased Chunni Lai, that has to be decided amongst the petitioner and Govind Ram and insofar as the present suit is concerned, where the plaintiff himself is a party, the same would not be affected by the said aspect of the matter and, therefore, the rejection of the application by the trial court, in the circumstances of the case, appears to be justified. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. 9. Looking to the fact that suit is pending since the year 2002, the trial court is directed to proceed with the suit in a most expeditious manner.