Delhi District Court
Om Parkash vs . Sushil Kumar Etc. on 12 December, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR: JSCCcumASCJcumGJ
KARKARDOOM: DELHI
Suit No. 232/07
Om Parkash Vs. Sushil Kumar Etc.
ORDER
This order shall dispose of the application of applicants Sushila and Vineet, son of the defendants, seeks impleadment as LRs of deceased plaintiff U/O.22 R.3 & 10 CPC. I have gone through the application of the applicants carefully. Since Kaushalya Devi can claim right in the property only through Sushil Kumar. But the deceased plaintiff Om Parkash has already executed the Will in favour of Nitin Kumar and Anuj Kumar. At this stage Kaushalya Devi does not falls within the ambit of LRs of deceased Om Parkash as her husband Sushil Kumar is alive and who is already made defendant in the present suit. With respect to impleadment of his son Vineet as LR. I have already impleaded Nitin Kumar and Anuj Kumar, as LRs of the deceased plaintiff to represent the deceased plaintiff on the basis of Will which has been executed in their favour (yet the Will is to be proved by the parties). Nitin Kumar and Anuj Kumar have prima facie Suit no. 232/07 1 of 4 2 right to prosecute the present plaint. The application is disposed of accordingly.
(Announced in open Court (JAGDISH KUMAR)
today i.e 12.12.11) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(East)
KKD COURTS
Suit no. 232/07 2 of 4
3
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR: JSCCcumASCJcumGJ KARKARDOOM: DELHI Suit No. 232/07 Om Parkash Vs. Sushil Kumar Etc. ORDER 1 This order shall dispose of an application of the applicants moved U/O.22 R.3 & 10 CPC r/w Sec.151 CPC. The applicants Anuj Kumar and Nitin Kumar wants to be substituted in placed of plaintiff to represent the deceased plaintiff, namely, Om Parkash. 2 Facts necessary for the disposal of application are that the deceased plaintiff Om Parkash has filed the present suit for possession of the suit property as well as for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants thereby directing the defendant to remove all the articles of the defendants, lying in the suit property. The deceased plaintiff also seeks the mandatory injunction thereby restraining the defendants not to interfere in the enjoyment and possession of the suit property. The suit property was initially in the name of wife of the plaintiff. After the death of plaintiff's (since deceased) wife Puspa Devi all the LRs of Puspa Devi relinquished Suit no. 232/07 3 of 4 4 their rights in favour of the deceased plaintiff Om Parkash. The deceased plaintiff had executed a Will with respect to suit property, in favour of Nitin Kumar and Anuj Kumar, the sons of defendant no. 1. The applicants was to be substituted as plaintiffs to represent the deceased plaintiff by asserting that they have right to sue on the basis of Will executed by the deceased plaintiff in their favour. 3 On the other hand it is replied by the defendants that Will executed by the deceased plaintiff is not a proper will, as the deceased plaintiff was not having right to execute the Will. The defendants prayed for the dismissal of the application. 4 I have heard the Ld. Counsel for parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the parties. 5 The Order 22 R.1 CPC says that the death of a plaintiff or defendant shall not cause the suit to abate if the right to sue survives. Both the applicants relying upon the Will which they asserted creates rights in their favour. The validity of the Will can be adjudicated at the time of final disposal of the present suit, after appreciating the evidence on record. The application has been moved within the period of limitation. I am of the considered view that the applicants are Suit no. 232/07 4 of 4 5 entitled to be substituted as plaintiffs to represent the deceased plaintiff Om Parkash. Application is allowed. Amended memo of parties be filed. Application disposed of accordingly.
(Announced in open Court (JAGDISH KUMAR)
today i.e 12.12.11) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(East)
KKD COURTS
Suit no. 232/07 5 of 4
6
Suit no. 232/07 6 of 4
7
Suit No. 232/07
12.12.11
Present: Counsel for plaintiff.
Counsel for defendant.
Arguments heard on application of U/O.22 R.3 CPC and U?O. 22 R.3 & 10 CPC.
Put up for order at 4.00 p.m. (Jagdish Kumar) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(East) KKD COURTS/12.12.11 At 4.00 p.m. Present: Counsel for parties.
Vide separate order the application of applicants Nitin and Anuj Kumar U/O.22 R.3 CPC is allowed. The another application of applicants Sushila and Vineet U/O.22 R.3 &10 CPC is dismissed.
Put up on 13.02.12 for filing amended memo of parties and PE.
(Jagdish Kumar)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(East)
KKD COURTS/12.12.11
Suit no. 232/07 7 of 4