Smt. Rampyari v. Smt. Seema
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 1 r. 10; O. 22 r. 4
Key paragraphs
- Para 1111. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Kasana, Tehsil Karwar District Ajmer Rajasthan ----Respondents (2 of 4) [CW-2777/2022] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Kumar Khandal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. J. P. Goyal, Senior Adv. assisted by Ms. Meenal Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Singh…
Judgment
Smt. Seema D/o Shri Ramgopal W/o Shri Shankar Lal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Jaal Ka Kheda, Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer At Present R/o Adarsh Colony, Sarwad Teshil Sarwad, District Ajmer
Ramgopal S/o Shri Jagannath, R/o Village Jaal Ka Kheda, Tehsil Kekri District Ajmer (Since Deceased)
Ratni D/o Shri Ramgopal W/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 53 Years, At Present Kalyan Colony Kekri Tehsil Kekri District Ajmer
Badam D/o Shri Ramgoapl W.o Shri Prahlad, Aged About 50 Years, At Present R/o Gordhanpura, Tehsil Sarwad, District Ajmer Rajasthan
Vimla D/o Shri Ramgopal W/o Shri Kailash Chand, Aged About 47 Years, At Present R/o Gordhanpura, Tehsil Sarwad, District Ajmer Rajasthan
Sonia D/o Shri Ramgopal W/o Shri Devi Lal, Aged About 40 Years, At Present R/o Gordhanpura Tehsil Sarwad, District Ajmer Rajasthan
Mona D/o Shri Ramgopal W/o Shri Mukesh, Aged About 37 Years, At Present R/o Jotaya, Tehsil Sarwad, District Ajmer Rajasthan
Suresh S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Arniya, Tehsil Sarwad District Ajmer At Present R/o Kalyan Colony, Ajmer Road, Kekri, Tehsil Kekri District Ajmer
The Sub- Registrar Kekri, Sub Registrar Office Kekri, District Ajmer Rajasthan
The Tehsildar, Tehsil Office, Kekri District Ajmer Rajasthan
Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Kasana, Tehsil Karwar District Ajmer Rajasthan ----Respondents (2 of 4) [CW-2777/2022] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Kumar Khandal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. J. P. Goyal, Senior Adv. assisted by Ms. Meenal Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Pal, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 02/01/2025 Order The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-applicant (for short ‘the applicant’) against the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the Senior Civil Judge No.1, Kekri, District Ajmer (for short ‘the trial court’) in suit No.79/2018 titled as “Smt. Seema V/s Ramgopal & Ors.”, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading her as a party in the suit. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the plaintiff- respondent No.1(for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for cancellation of gift deed executed by Ramgopal in favour of respondent No.8-Suresh.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that during pendency of the suit, Ramgopal died and the plaintiff filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC mentioning that since Ramgopal has died and his legal heirs are already on record as defendant Nos.1 to 6. So, name of Ramgopal be deleted from the array of defendants. The trial court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff and deleted the name of Ram Gopal. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant filed an application under Order 1 Rule (3 of 4) [CW-2777/2022] 10 CPC to the effect that she is wife of deceased-Ramgopal. So, she is necessary party in the present suit but the trial court vide order dated 17.12.2021 dismissed the application filed by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the trial court has already allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC and considered the factum of death of Ramgopal but wrongly came to the conclusion that legal heirs of deceased Ramgopal are already on record.
Applicant is a necessary party being the wife of deceased Ramgopal. So, the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the trial court be set-aside and applicant be impleaded as a party-defendant in the suit filed by the respondent No.1. Learned senior counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the trial court vide order dated 17.12.2021 rightly dismissed the application filed by the applicant. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned senior counsel for the respondents. It is an admitted position that applicant is wife of deceased Ramgopal. The trial court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC and deleted the name of Ramgopal from the array of the defendants with the observation that his legal heirs are already on record but the trial court vide order dated 17.12.2021 committed an error in dismissed the application filed by the applicant.
Since applicant is wife of deceased Ramgopal, she is necessary party in the suit filed (4 of 4) [CW-2777/2022] by the respondent No.1 for its adjudication. So, in my considered opinion, the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the trial court deserves to be set-aside. Accordingly, the petition filed by the applicant is allowed. The order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the trial court is set-aside and the trial court is directed to implead the applicant as a party- defendant in the suit filed by the respondent No.1. Pending application(s), if any also stand(s), disposed of. Gourav/68 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.