Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order dt. 11.01.2008 by which the trial Court allowed the application of the legal representatives of the plaintiff filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and impleaded all the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff Geeta Devi as plaintiffs as legal representatives of Smt. Geeta Devi. According to the petitioner -defendant Smt. Geeta Devi died on 10.12.2006. The applicant Ashok Kumar submitted application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC on 09.03.2007 and stated that since Smt. Geeta Devi executed a Will in his favour on 18.03.2005, therefore, he alone is entitled to be impleaded as party plaintiff in the suit after the death of Smt. Geeta Devi. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner -defendant submitted reply to the application and pointed out that there are other legal representatives of Smt. Geeta Devi and they challenged the Will also. In this situation, the applicant Ashok Kumar submitted another application and prayed that in case the Ashok Kumar who is alone son of Smt. Geeta Devi in whose favour there is Will if is not impleaded as party as legal representative of Smt. Geeta Devi then the legal representatives who are applicants Nos. 1 to 5 may also be impleaded as party in the suit. That application was allowed by the trial Court by impugned order.
(3.) ACCORDING to learned Counsel for the petitioner the plaintiff's second application is beyond the statutory period of limitation and the suit of the plaintiff already abated before that. The plaintiff's legal representatives did not submit any application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC for setting aside of the abatement of the suit. It is also submitted that the trial Court did not hold any inquiry about the Will dt. 18.03.2005 as is required under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC, therefore, the order of the trial Court suffers from error of law.;