- (1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 23rd September, 1995 passed by the IV Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut substituting the names of Anil Gupta, Arvind Gupta, Prashant Gupta, Ajay Bindal and Sanjay Bindal under Order XXII, Rule 5, C. P. C. as legal heirs and representatives of late Sri Satendra Lal Gupta and also allowed the application (42-ka) allowing the amendments prayed in the said application under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C.
(2.) IN this revision, the opposite parties are represented by Sri Ashok Khare and Sri Sharal Srivastava, representing all the respondents except respondent No. 2, who is also represented by Sri Anurag Khanna. Since all the parties in the case are represented and the counsel for the respondents made a statement that they do not propose to file any counter affidavit and the documents filed with the application are stated to be sufficient which are not controverted, thus, without formerly admitting the civil revision or calling for the record of the court below, I consider it appropriate to finally hear the revision and dispose it. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant Sri S. P. Gupta placed the pedigree of the parties contesting the suits in the court below. The pedigree submitted is quoted below for convenience and appreciating the facts of the case. SETH BANARSI DAS GUPTA (Died on 1. 12. 1986) Seth Mohan La! Seth Brij Seth Jitendra Lai Seth Satendra Lai Gupta (died on Bhusan Lai Gupta (died on 9. 1. 94) (Divorcee) (died on 17. 8. 88) Bmdal. f 6. 7. 95) !i /1 Ii j1 Anil Arvind Smt. Smt. Prashant Smt. Km. Km. Gupta Gupta Bimla Shashi Gupta Sunita Geetika Ruchika (son) (son) Devi Agarwal (son), Gupta (daughter) (daughter) (widow) (daughter), (wedow) Ajay Bindal (son) Sanjay Bindal (son) The order impugned in the present civil revision arise out of Suit No. 219 of 1995. The plaintiff in the suit claimed the following reliefs which are quoted as under: " (a) That by a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants No. 1 and 4, the defendants No. 1 and 4 be restrained from interfering in the joint possession of the plaintiff alongwith other co-partners and share-holders of the H. U. F. of Seth Banarsi Das Gupta H. U. F. and its movable and immovable properties including M/s. Modern Industries, Sahibabad, district Ghaziabad in any way whatsoever, including damaging any property in any way whatsoever, on the basis of alleged forged and null and void family partition dated 15. 1. 1986 reduced in writing on 18. 1. 1986 allegedly by Seth Banarsi Das Gupta. (b) That costs of the suit be awarded in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. (c) That any other relief which the court thinks fit and proper be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. " It is note-worthy that Sri Satendra Lal Gupta was arrayed as defendant No. 4 in the suit who died on 6. 7. 95. An application dated 10. 7. 95 was moved by the plaintiff seeking deletion of the name of satendra Lal Gupta on the ground that he was a divorcee and issueless person. Sri Brij Bhusan Lal Bindal, defendant No. 1 submitted an objection with affidavit controverting the application of the plaintiff Prasant Gupta. It was said by the defendant No. 1 Brij Bhushan Lal Bindal that Satendra Lal Gupta had left a Will dated 29. 6. 89 and have bequeathed all his movable and immovable properties of his nephews Ajay Bindal and Sanjay Bindal. It was claimed that the said two nephews were legal heirs of deceased Satendra Lal Gupta. Application under Order I Rule 10, C. P. C. was also submitted for impleading the aforesaid persons by them.
(3.) PLAINTIFF Prashant Gupta set up a case and pleaded that a Will dated 20. 2. 95 was left by Satendra Lal Gupta, deceased by which plaintiff Anil Gupta, Arvind Gupta, sons of late Mohan Lai Gupta, Ajay Bindal, Sanjay Bindal sons of Brij Bhusan Lal Bindal were shown as beneficiaries under the said Will. The plaintiff disputed the correctness and genuineness and due execution of the Will dated 29. 6. 89. The plaintiff in the amendment application sought the amendments, quoted below: " (1) That after Para 2, the following be allowed to be incorporated in the amendment application- 4/1 Sri Ajay Bmdal. 4/2 Sri Sanjay Bindal. Both sons of seth Brij Bhushan Lal Bindal, residents of Modern Industries, Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad. (2) That thereafter the following Para-2a be allowed to be incorporated in the plaint in between paras No. 2 and 3 as follows- Para 2a : That Seth Satendra Lal Gupta (Defendant No. 4) has died on 6th July, 1995 and according to the Will dated 20. 2. 1995 he has left five beneficiaries with the plaintiff Sri Prashant Gupta, Sri Anil Gupta and Sri Arvind Gupta sons of late Seth Mohan Lai Gupta, Sri Ajay Bindal and Sanjay Bindal sons of late Seth Brij Bhushan Lal Bindal. Seth Anil Gupta and Seth Arvind Gupta are already parties to the suit while the plaintiff is also a party to the suit, therefore, they do not require impleadment. The other two beneficiaries of the deceased Seth Satendra Lal Gupta as per Will dated 20. 2. 1995 Sarvashri Ajay Bindal and Sanjay Bindal are being impleaded as parties to the suit as defendant Nos. 4/1 and 4/2. As per Will dated 20. 2. 1995, all the five nephews of Seth Satendra Lal Gupta as stated aforesaid have succeeded to the estate of deceased Seth Satendra Lal Gupta on his death in equal shares. " It was argued by Sri S. P. Gupta that a copy of the Will dated 20. 2. 1995 alleged to have been executed by Satendra Lal Gupta, deceased was filed and no original document was filed before the court.;