V.P.Gupta, J. - (1.)The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31-3-1978 passed by the Sub- Judge, Una on an application under Order 22, Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code), filed by the present petitioner.
(2.)The brief facts are that Kodu alias Izzat Rai son of Krishan Dass filed a suit for declaration and injunction and also in the alternative for possession of the land detailed in the plaint in the Court of Sub-Judge, Una on 6-11-1970, against Des Raj respondent The defendant contested the suit and this suit was fixed for 5-12-1976 for defendant's evidence. On 5-12-1976 the plaintiff or his counsel did not appear in Court and as such the suit was dismissed in default by the Sub-Judge, Una.
(3.)Application foe restoration of the suit was filed by the plaintiff Kodu on 1812-1976 and it was alleged that on 5-12-1976, due to illness he could not appear in person and also could not bring his counsel from Hoshiarpur for conducting the case. Notice of this application wa" issued to the defendant/respondent. In the meantime the plaintiff Kodu died, with the result the present petitioner claiming himself lo be a legal representative of deceased Kodu filed an application under Order 22, Rule 3, C. P, C. for being impleaded as a party on the allegations that Kodu plaintiff had died on 10-1-1977. This application was filed on 1-2-1977 by the present petitioner. The defendant- respondent contested this application and on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed on 18-5-1977: 1. Whether the applicant Mahabir Parshad is the legal representative of the deceased Kodu as alleged? 2. Whether there are other legal representatives of the deceased Kodu also. If so what effect? 3. Relief.
;