SMT. RAMESHWARI DEVI Vs. ANIRUDH KUMAR AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Smt. Rameshwari Devi
Anirudh Kumar And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.03.2012 passed by Addl. District Judge/2nd FTC, Haridwar in Civil Appeal no. 5 of 2011 'Keshav Dutt and ors. vs. Anirudh Kumar and ors.' whereby application of petitioner paper no. 76c/2 seeking her impleadment in the appeal, has been rejected.
(2.) IT is not disputed that one Shri Keshav Dutt, who was impleaded as defendant no. 3 in Original Suit No. 76 of 1991, died on 14.07.1998. After his death, his sons and daughter were substituted in the suit in place of their father late Keshav Dutt. The petitioner who is widow of late Keshav Dutt, did not move any application during the pendency of the suit, claiming one of the legal heirs of late Keshav Dutt. Said suit was decreed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar vide order dated 16th December, 2000 declaring the plaintiffs owner of 1/3rd share in the property in question. Aggrieved by the order dated 16th December, 2000, an appeal, bearing no. 5 of 2001, was preferred. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner, who is widow of late Keshav Dutt, moved an application for her impleadment. Said application has been rejected by the Addl. District Judge/2nd F.T.C., Haridwar against which present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the widow of late Keshav Dutt/ defendant no.3 and is one of the legal heirs of the deceased and in case, the appeal is decided in favour of the sons and daughter of the petitioner, though the petitioner is not party in the appeal, her rights will adversely be affected. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the suit was a partition suit, and sons and daughter of the petitioner as well as the petitioner have nothing to do with the property in question and in such view of the matter, the petitioner is not a necessary party, therefore the Lower Appellate Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the legal heirs of late Keshav Dutt are already there and they have preferred appeal against the order passed by the trial Court. He further submitted that the petitioner has moved the application 76c/2 after a considerable period of ten years.
I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the widow of late Keshav Dutt and when other legal heirs of late Keshav Dutt have already been impleaded, I do not find any justification in not permitting the petitioner to be impleaded as one of the parties, as she is widow of late Keshav Dutt, who was defendant no.3 in the suit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.