Allahabad High Court
Ram Prakash Tripathi vs Nyayadhish, Laghuvad Nyayalay (Jscc) ... on 3 February, 2010
Author: V.K. Shukla
Bench: V.K. Shukla
Court No. 21
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2209 of 2010
Ram Prakash Tripathi
Vs.
Nayayadhish Laghuvad Nyayalay
(JSCC) Allahabad and others
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.
In the present case, order dated 17.1.2008 was passed by the Assistant Nagar Ayukta, Allahabad wherein name of petitioner was removed from House No. 153/108-A, Pura Parain, Alopibag, District Allahabad and name of respondent no.2 was mutated. Against the same appeal had been filed. In the said proceedings, respondent no.4 Sahjadee died. Substitution application was moved and as per the same, legal heirs of Sahjadee respondent no.4 were substituted and they were already on record. Thereafter again application was moved for substituting daughter of Sahjade, said application was rejected. Appeal preferred, was also rejected. Thereafter, request was made for amendment, same was objected to by contending that similar application had been rejected in the past, as such same had been rejected. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
Sri. V.K. Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case in the suit, which had been on going inter-se parties specific objection has been taken that suit be dismissed for non-joinder of the party i.e. daughter of Sahjadee, as such writ petition deserved to be allowed.
Countering the said submission, Sri Sanjai Singh on the other hand contended that rightful view has been taken in the matter and no interference should be made.
Accepted position is that in mutation proceeding, after death of Sahjadee, application 22-C was moved and as per the same legal heirs of the Sahjadee were already on record and in this regard in front of name of Sahjadee necessary not was to be made. Thereafter an application has been moved for furnishing details of daughter of Sahjadee, so that necessary steps are undertaken, said application was rejected on 21.8.2009 and appeal preferred against the same, has also been dismissed.
Order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the appellate authority has been 2 produced before this court and said order reflects that earlier application moved by the petitioner to the effect that applicant should be directed to supply the name of daughter of Sahjadee so that they may be substituted and said application was rejected. Against the same second appeal is not maintainable. With these observation same has been dismissed.
Earlier application was for disclosing the name of daughter of Sahjade so that requisite steps may be undertaken, said application has been rejected. In regular suit on going in between parties plea has been taken of non joinmder of necessary parties i.e. daughter of late Sajhjadee. In appeal prayer has been made to supply the name and address so that requisite steps are undertaken for substitution. Said application had been rejected and then present application has been moved. Earlier application for disclosing the name and address and then thereafter to take steps. Present application has been moved with prayer of substitution and giving therein name of the daughter also. Once in the regular suit, objection has been raised for non- joinder of the necessary party then in such situation application, which moved by the petitioner ought to have been allowed for substituting legal heir i.e. daughter of late Sajhadee also, in the fact of case.
Consequently, order dated 17.12.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. Judge Small Causes Court is directed to substitute Itali Devi wife of Lalta Prasad, as respondent no.4/1 in the array of respondents and thereafter appeal be decided accordingly.
With these observations, writ petition is allowed.
Dt. 03.02.2010 T.S.