MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) Petitioner has come up before this Court with the prayer to set aside the order dated 13.09.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.19, Allahabad in Civil Revision No.87/2009 (Chiraunji Lal Gupta v. M/s Prakash and others) as well as the order dated 08.12.2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Room No.19, Allahabad in Original suit No.100/1994 (M/s Prakash and others v. Smt. Savitri Devi and others).
(2.) This Court has the occasion to peruse the record in question and finds that plaintiff respondents have preferred Original Suit No.100/1994 (M/s Prakash and others v. Smt. Savitri Devi and others) for specific performance in respect of Pucca building situated at Sahaso on Phaphamau Road Allahabad, with the prayer that sale deed may be executed through Court as per terms of the registered agreement for sale dated 08.03.1988 or in alternative a decree of Rs. 1,23,000/- with contractual interest @ 2% per month from 08.03.1988 till the date of recovery passed in favour of plaintiff.
(3.) In the said proceeding, Makhan Lal was arrayed as defendant no.4 and plaintiff had moved an application under Section 22(4) read with section 151 CPC on the ground that Makhan Lal is reported to have expired on 05.12.2015 and in spite of sufficient service held by the trial Court on 17.10.1996, no Written Statement was ever filed by the late Makhan Lal and as such, he was never inclined to contest the suit. In the said proceeding only Smt. Savitri Devi and Chiraunji Lal have filed their joint Written Statement besides the Written statement of defendant nos.5/1 and 5/2 after their impleadment and moreover the plaintiff witness was closed way back in the year 1999 and the matter has been delayed by defendant either on the one pretext or the other. In the said application, it has been averred that all the defendants concerned had joint and common interest in respect to the property in question and as such, the property is represented in the suit through the remaining defendants and in this backdrop, request has been made to the Trial Court that plaintiff may be exempted from making any substitution as legal heirs and legal representatives of Makhan Lal and only word 'dead' may be allowed to be written against his name to the array of the parties of the defendants. Finally, the Trial Court has allowed the aforesaid application under Section 22 (4) read with section 151 CPC moved by the respondents on 08.12.2015. The same was also assailed in Civil Revision No.87/2016, which was also rejected by the Learned Additional District Judge, Court no.19, Allahabad on 13.09.2017.;