Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) ADMIT .
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The sole plaintiff late Shri Ram Lal Verma died on 5th March, 2007 and an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for substitution of his legal representatives was filed by his counsel on 16th May, 2007. The defendants filed written -reply to the application and raised an objection that the application has not been filed on behalf of the legal representatives nor their 'vakalatnama' has been filed along -with the application, therefore, the suit has abated on expiry of period of limitation of 90 days, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application on 22nd September, 2007 under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file 'vakalatnama' on behalf of the legal representatives. The said application was also contested by the defendants by filing a written -reply. The trial court, vide its order dated 2nd November, 2007 allowed both the applications filed by the plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 3 as well as under Section 151 CPC and passed an order for substitution of legal representatives of deceased plaintiff on the record. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the defendant.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the application dated 16th May, 2007 was not filed on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased but it was filed duly signed by the Advocate, who was not authorized on behalf of the legal representatives as no 'vakalatnama' of legal representatives was filed along -with the application, therefore, the trial court committed an illegality in passing the impugned order and in not dismissing the suit as abated in the facts and circumstances of the present case.;