R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 7.10.2011, passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1, Sikar, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioners' application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, the petitioners have approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that Seth Jugal Das Ganeriwala Charitable Trust along with Mr. Basant Kumar Ganeriwala had filed a suit for eviction of the respondent -defendants before the learned Judge. According to the plaintiffs, the father of Mr. Basant Kumar Ganeriwala, namely Mr. Rameshwarlal Ganeriwala surrendered the property of the family by creating the Trust mentioned above. The Trust had certain properties belonging to the Ganeriwala family situated in Village Ganeri, District Sikar. Further, according to the plaintiffs, the Sarpanch, constructed a Panchayat, Patwar, Gram Sewak Bhawan on the property belonging to the Trust. The said construction was raised without the consent of the Trust. Therefore, the Trust filed a civil suit. During the pendency of the civil suit, Mr. Basant Kumar Ganeriwala expired on 25.10.2009. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 claimed to be his legal representatives. They further claimed that during the annual cleaning, they found many papers belonging to their father, Mr. Basant Kumar Ganeriwala. From these papers, they realized that he had instituted a suit along with the Trust before the learned Judge. Therefore, on 5.2.2011, they submitted an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for taking them on record as legal representatives of Mr. Basant Kumar Ganeriwala. They also filed an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. However, by order dated 7.10.2011, the learned Judge has rejected the said application. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(2.) Mr. Anoop Dhand, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has pleaded that since the property belonged to the Ganeriwala family, since the petitioners' grandfather was solely looking after the property, since Mr. Basant Kumar Ganeriwala was actively involved with the Trust, he had filed the civil suit along with Trust. Secondly, the learned Judge is not justified in claiming that there is no evidence to show that Mr. Basant Kumar Ganeriwala was a Trustee of the Trust. According to Mr. Dhand, the said observation is clearly contradicted by a document dated 10.1.1998, which clearly shows the names of Trustees as well as the names of members of the Trust. The name of Mr. Basant Kumar Ganeriwala is shown at item No. 5. Hence, according to him, the observation made by the learned Judge is misplaced. Thirdly, Mr. Basant Kumar Ganeriwala had also made a declaration, wherein he had clearly stated that Gram Panchayat, Ganeri had issued a Patta on 30.4.1960/11.6.1960. Moreover, family properties were created into Trust. Yet, the Panchayat Ghar, Patwar Ghar and Gram Sewak Quarter have been built upon the said property. Fourthly, since the petitioners are the legal heirs of the Mr. Basant Kumar Ganeriwala, they are equally his legal representatives. Thus, they have the right to pursue the suit filed by their father. Lastly, in case, the learned Judge had any doubt on the issues, whether the petitioners, who are, indeed, legal representatives of Mr. Basant Kumar Ganeriwala, he should have followed the procedure established under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC. Since, the impugned order has been passed without following the said procedure, the order deserves to be set aside.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and considered the other documents submitted along with the petition and examined the impugned order.;