Delhi High Court
Sonakshi Gupta vs L.R Gupta ,Huf & Ors on 27 October, 2021
$~47 (original)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
O.A.25/2021, I.A.13872/2021 & I.A.13873/2021 in
+ CS(OS) 1965/2012
SONAKSHI GUPTA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Simarpal Singh Sawhney,
Adv.
versus
L.R GUPTA ,HUF & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Ms.
Sanjana Nangia and Mr. Manaswy Jha,
Advs. for D-3/appellant in OA
Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Adv. for D-21 & 22
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (O R A L)
% 27.10.2021
O.A.25/2021
1. This is an appeal challenging an order dated 28th September,
2021, passed by the Joint Registrar to the extent the order allows
I.A.3868/2021, preferred by the plaintiff under Order XXII Rule 4 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
2. The impugned order, to the extent the appellant is aggrieved
thereby, reads as under:
"IA 3868/2021 (under Order XXII Rule 4 read with
Section 151 CPC seeking impleadment of Lrs of deceased
defendant no.2 Sh. L.R. Gupta)
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:30.10.2021
22:18:20
Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that the proposed LRs of
deceased defendant no.2 Sh. L.R. Gupta already stand
impleaded as defendant nos.3, 4 and 6 in the instant suit. In
view of aforesaid, it has been prayed that deceased defendant
no. 2 may be deleted from the array of the parties.
Despite being given sufficient opportunity, no reply has been
filed on behest of any of the defendants. Even otherwise, it is
evident from the record that the proposed LRs are already
impleaded as parties.
In view of aforesaid, application stands allowed and deceased
defendant no.2 is deleted from the array of the parties.
Accordingly, both IAs stand disposed of in aforesaid terms."
3. Mr. Vashisht's essential contention is that Defendants 4 and 6
are not entitled to be treated as legal representatives of the deceased
Defendant 2, Mr. L.R. Gupta. He expresses an apprehension that the
plaintiff may use the impugned order passed by the Joint Registrar as
evidence of title of Defendants 4 and 6 in the estate of the deceased
Defendant 2.
4. Mr. Vashisht also submits that Defendant 2 could not have been
deleted from the array of parties, but that Defendant 2, having expired,
would have to continue to remain a party to the suit albeit through his
legal representatives, who, according to Mr. Vashisht, is Defendant 3
alone and not Defendants 4 and 6.
5. Regarding the submission that Defendant 2 would have to
continue to remain a party in the suit even after he expired, I do not
find anything in the CPC which supports this submission. Rather,
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:30.10.2021
22:18:20
Order I Rule 3 of the CPC specifically requires persons to be
impleaded as defendants. Once a person has expired, I find nothing
irregular in the decision of the Joint Registrar to delete the deceased
defendant from the array of parties.
6. Insofar as the apprehension, expressed by Mr. Vashisht, of the
possibility of any one of the parties to the litigation using the
impugned order dated 28th September, 2021 as a ground to urge title,
or interest of Defendants 4 to 6 in the estates of the deceased
Defendant No. 2, the apprehension may, in my view, be assuaged by a
clarification that the order dated 28th September, 2021, shall merely be
treated as impleading the persons who, according to the plaintiff, were
the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. It shall not
preclude any of the other parties to the litigation including the present
appellant from questioning, at any stage, the title or entitlement of
Defendants 4 and 6 to the estate of the deceased Defendant No.2.
7. With the aforesaid clarification, this appeal stands disposed of.
I.A.13872/2021 & I.A.13873/2021
8. In view of the order passed in O.A. 25/2021, these applications
also stand disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
OCTOBER 27, 2021/kr
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:30.10.2021
22:18:20
