RAM PARKASH Vs. SHAMKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHAGAT Ram and his brother, Munshi Ram, brought a suit against Roshan Lal and others for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from constructing some building on the land in dispute and interfering in any way with the possession of the plaintiffs regarding the said land. During the pendency of the suit, one of the plaintiff, namely, Bhagat Ram, died. Thereupon, Mehanga Ram and Ram Parkash made an application under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil procedure for being impleaded as the sole legal representatives of the deceased on the basis of a registered will alleged to have been made in their favour by Bhagat ram. Similarly, Smt. Shankari, daughter of the deceased, also applied for this very purpose. The question, therefore, arose as to who was the real legal representative of Bhagat Ram and that largely depended on the validity of the alleged will. The trial Judge, instead of determining this question, directed on 142-1966 that all the applicants, namely, Ram Parkash, Mehanga Ram and Smt. Shankari be brought on the record as the legal representatives of the deceased. In the said order, he proceeded to say -- ". . this order will in no way prejudice the validity of the will in question nor to the question of real heir to the deceased which is open between applicants to contest". After having passed this order, the learned Judge made another order on the same date to the effect that the said three applicants be impleaded as the legal representatives of Bhagat Ram 'for the purpose of this suit'. He further directed the parties to produce evidence in the suit. Against both these orders dated 14-2-1966, the present revision petition has been filed by Ram Parkash and Mehanga Ram.

(2.) IT was contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial Judge had erred in impleading all the three applicants as the legal representatives of bhagat Bam, deceased without first deciding as to who in fact was the true legal representative of the deceased.

(3.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this contention must prevail. Order 22, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads:-