- (1.) The petitioner, Rajendra Meena, is aggrieved by the order dated 17.8.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Phagi, District Jaipur, whereby, the learned Magistrate has dismissed an application under Order 22, Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner, and has added Radhakishan as a legal representative of Ramnarayan, the defendant No.1.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff, Rajendra Meena, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. The respondent-defendants filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.1, Ramnarayan, expired on 19.1.2013. Thereupon, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application under Order 22, Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC stating therein that since the wife of deceased Ramnarayan, is already on record as the respondent-defendant No.2, and since Ramnarayan has expired leaving no other heir, the word deceased be added against the name of Ramnarayan. The respondent-defendant filed the reply to the said application and prayed that Radhakishan be impleaded as party defendant as legal representative of the deceased Ramnarayan on the basis of a Will left by Ramnarayan. By order dated 17.8.2013, the learned trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, but accepted the reply filed by the respondent-defendants and added Radhakishan as party defendant, as legal representative of the Ramnarayan. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. P.S. Sirohi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Ramnarayan had expired on 19.1.2013. His wife, Chhoti Devi, was already impleaded as party defendant No.2 in the suit. Therefore, there was no need for the learned Magistrate to add Radhakishan as legal representative that too on the basis of an alleged Will left by Ramnarayan. Secondly, it is always the option of the plaintiff to file a suit against a particular person. Since the suit was for permanent injunction and since the plaintiff was of the opinion that his peaceful possession of the property would be disturbed by Ramnarayan and his wife, Chhoti Devi, he had chosen to make both of them as party defendants. However, he does not have any apprehension against Radhakishan. Thus, Radhakishan need not be made a party respondent, as Ramnarayan's legal representative. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has erred in directing that Radhakishan be taken on record as legal representative of Ramnarayan.;