- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This is a writ peti tion in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by the District Judge, Al lahabad dated 29-9-1995 (Annexure-1) and the order passed by the III Additional Munsif, Allahabad dated 23-3-1995 (Annexure-II) to the writ petition.
(2.) THE brief facts from which this writ petition has arisen are as follows and which are relevant for the purpose to decide the writ petition. Suit No. 628 of 1981 was filed by plaintiff Mohd. Siddique against Abdul Shakoor with the allegations that they entered into a partnership business on 7th September, 1959. THEreafter, it was agreed that the business be closed. THE partnership was dissolved by giving one month's notice dated 19th May, 1981. Plaintiff filed a suit that he is entitled to get profit for three years @ Rs. 25 per month till the date of the suit and pendent elite and future till the date of actual possession over the accom modation in dispute. THE plaintiff also claimed the relief for recovery of Rs. 900/- as profit of dissolved partnership firm and also vacant possession of the shop in dispute. He claimed the damages pendent elite and future till the date of delivery of actual possession over the shop in dispute @ Rs. 25 per month. A written statement has been filed. It was averred that the property was owned by Rasul Bux and now all his legal repre sentatives, who are necessary parties to the suit. Now the controversy for the purpose of deciding this writ petition is that Smt. Chameli Devi happened to purchase the uare of Mohd. Siddique on the basis of sale deed dated 18-11-1982. She filed an applica tion for amendment on 6-4- 1983 to be im-pleaded as co-plaintiff. The amendment was allowed. Later on Mohd. Siddique died on 10-11-1992 leaving behind Smt. Bismilla and others, his widow, daughters and sons, as mentioned in paragraph 12 of the writ petition. No substitution application was filed within three months under Order 22 Rule 3, C. P. C. and according to the petitioner, the suit has abated under Order XXII, Rule 3, C. P. C. as the natural heirs were not brought on record within three months. The submission on behalf of Smt. Chameli Devi is that she is transferee of the property in dispute and she is entitled to continue over it and there is no question of legal representative.
(3.) THE lower Court allowed the plea of Smt. Chameli Devi and the appellate Court also upheld the finding of the lower appel late Court on the ground that the legal heirs of Mohd. Siddique was not brought on record. Feeling aggrieved by the orders of both the Courts below, the present writ peti tion has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.;