- (1.) The petitioners/defendants have challenged the order dated 4/10/2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No.5, Kota (Rajasthan)[hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'] in Civil Suit No.38/2011(170/2007), whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application of the respondent No.4 for substituting him as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff.
(2.) It appears that the deceased Ram Kalyan Sharma-original plaintiff had filed the suit against the present petitioners, and the respondent Nos.2 and 3, seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 21/3/2007, alleging interalia that the defendant No.1/petitioner No.1 had misused the power of attorney 22/4/1991 executed by the plaintiff in his favour, and had executed the sale deed in question in favour of the defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4(petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4) who happened to be his own daughters in law. It appears that the said suit was resisted by the petitioners/defendants by filing the written statement and the Trial Court after framing the issues had proceeded further with the Trial. It further appears that during the pendency of trial, the original plaintiff Ram Kalyan Sharma expired and therefore the respondent No.4 submitted an application for substituting him as the legal representative of the said plaintiff, relying upon the Will dated 23/6/2008 allegedly executed by the original plaintiff in his favour . The said application was resisted by the present petitioners, however the Trial Court has allowed the same vide the impugned order, against which the present petition has been filed.
(3.) After arguing on the merits of the pettion, it is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Ms. Kamla Devi for the petitioners that the petition was listed in the for orders category and not in the admission category and therefore she should be given another opportunity for making her submissions on the merits of the petition. In this regard, it is required to be noted that the Court while issuing notice to the respondents on 23/2/2015 had directed the Trial Court not to pass final order for eight weeks. Thereafter the petition was listed two three times but the learned counsel for the petitioners did not bother to get the said stay extended. It appears that thereafter she had filed one application for extension of stay order on 19/5/2015. Thereafter the matter was listed from time to time but was adjourned at her request. When again the matter was listed on 2/7/2015, the learned counsel for the petitioners was not prepared, and therefore by way of last opportunity, it was kept today with specific understanding that the petition shall be heard on merits and not on the application for extension of stay order. Though today, the matter is listed in the category of orders on interim application, since the petition was to be heard on merits, the learned counsel Ms. Jain had started her arguments on merits of the petition only , however when the Court was not inclined to grant the petition, she raised the technical objection that the matter is listed in the order category. Such submission cannot be accepted, and therefore is rejected.;