SHIV KUMAR SHARMA,J. - (1.) INSTANT revision impugns the order dated August 30, 1996 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2 Jaipur City whereby the learned judge refused to implead the petitioner in the appeal being the legal representative of appellant S.D. Sharma who passed away during the pendency of the said appeal.
(2.) SUIT for eviction in respect of rented premises was decreed by the learned trial court in favour of plaintiff non -petitioner (for short the landlord) and against Shri S.D. Sharma. An appeal was filed by Shri S.D. Sharma against the decree of the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal Shri S.D. Sharma expired. Application was filed by Smt. Janak Rani wife of late Shri S.D. Sharma and by the petitioner for impleading them as appellants in the appeal. Learned appellate court impleaded Smt. Janak Rani as appellant but ordered enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC in respect of averments of the petitioner, according to which the petitioner claimed himself as an adopted son of Shri S.D. Sharma. The petitioner examined himself and Janak Rani and exhibited some relevant documents. No evidence was produced by the land lord. The learned appellate court therefore, refused to implead the petitioner and dismissed his application. Mr. R.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the petitioner produced oral as well as documentary evidence and the court below ought to have believed the uncontroverted evidence but it miserably failed in making distinction between concept of legal representative and legal heir. Mr. Agarwal, learned Counsel placed reliance on Santosh v. Kailash and Anr. RLW 1996(3) Raj. 538. Sandra Rajali v. Gopala : AIR1934Mad100 , Kalu Ram v. Charon Singh , Mohindra Kaur v. Piara Singh Mithu Lal v. State of M.P. : 1975CriLJ236 .
(3.) I have carefully scanned the arguments as well as the authorities cited before me. According to Section 2(11) of the C.P.C. even an intermiddler with the estate of deceased can be a legal representative for the purpose of the pending proceedings before the court. In Kalu Ram v. Charana Singh this Court (Hon'ble Rajesh Balia, J.) indicated in para 6 thus: In view of this settled position of law, it must be held that enquiry into right to heirship is not the determining factor in deciding whether a person is or is not a legal representative for the purpose of proceedings before the court, what is required to be considered to whether the person claiming to represent the estate of the deceased for the purpose, of lis has significant interest in carrying on litigation and is not any imposter. ;