NIMAI CHARAN NAYAK Vs. GOURAHARI NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil miscellaneous petition arises out of rejection of an application under Order 22, Rule 3 of C.P.C at the instance of the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff.

(2.) Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless the petitioner is added as plaintiff in place of the deceased plaintiff, there is no scope for bringing the other legal heirs to the fold of the suit. Sri Nayak, thus contended that having failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter the trial Court has arrived at the wrong and erroneous impugned order. Referring to a decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Smt. Gema Coutinho Rodrigues Vs. Bricio Francisco Pereira and others as reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1199 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this decision has direct application to the case at hand. It is under the above premises, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order thus should be interfered with and set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for the opposite party admitted that there are other legal heirs. Supporting the impugned order learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the existence of other legal heirs, the petitioner was duty bound to bring all of them while moving the application under Order 22, Rule 3 of C.P.C. Learned counsel for the opposite party thus contended that the impugned order is justified and requiring no interference by this Court.