DINESH MEHTA,J. - (1.) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.03.2017 whereby, the learned Additional District Judge, Jaisalmer (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Appellate Court") has taken on record the legal representatives of the plaintiff - Narayan Das.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff - Narayan Das had filed a suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction, through his power of attorney holder and son - Satya Narayan. The said suit was dismissed, an appeal where-against was filed by the plaintiff - Narayan Das. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff - appellant - Narayan Das expired on 13.04.2013. However, an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking substitution of his legal representatives came to be filed on 21.02.2017. The applicant(s) also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and so also, an application under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside of the abatement.
(3.) The aforesaid applications filed by the applicants have been allowed by the learned Appellate Court, vide its order dated 27.03.2017, which reads as under:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... Challenging the aforesaid order dated 27.03.2017, Mr. Manas Khatri, contended that the order impugned is not only non-speaking and against the settled cannons of law, but perverse also, as the same records petitioner's concession that the respondents did not want to file any reply to such applications. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Appellate Court has taken legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff - Narayan Das on record, without even deciding the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and application filed under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking setting aside of the abatement. The Court below has not even noticed the contentions and arguments of the parties in relation to the subject applications. 3.On the other hand, Mr. Jagat Tatia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1/1 to 1/6 (legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff - Narayan Das) submitted that the learned Appellate Court has passed the order dated 27.03.2017, after taking into account the factual position. He submitted that since the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff - appellant - Narayan Das have already been taken on record, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted; and that the writ petition against the order dated 27.03.2017 is not maintainable.;