Johari Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) v. Smt. Shyama Devi W/o Shri Nand Kishore, Resident Of

Smt. Shyama Devi W/o Shri Nand Kishore, Resident Of Chowkri Ghat Darwaja, House No. 1943-44, Ghee Walo Ka Rasta, Dada Market, Johari Bazar, Jaipur (Died During Pendency Of Suit). 1/1. Shankar Lal Saini S/o Late Smt. Shyama Devi W/o Shri Nand Kishore, Resident Of Chowkri Ghat Darwaja, House No. 1943-44, Ghee Walo Ka Rasta, Dada Market, Johari Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.). 1/2. Ramlal Saini S/o Late Smt. Shyama Devi, W/o Nand Kishore, Resident Of Chowkri Ghat Darwaja, House No. 1943-44, Ghee Walo Ka Rasta, Dada Market, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:30956] (2 of 5) [CSA-206/2022]

2. Jitendra Kumar Rajendra Kumar, Through As Alleged Proprietor Shri Gulab Chand Kala, Resident Of Chowkri Modi Khana, House No. 818, Seva Path, Lalji Sand Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Died During Pendency Of Suit). 2/1. Vinod Jain S/o Late Shri Gulab Chand Kala, Resident Of Chowkri Modi Khana, House No. 818, Seva Path, Lalji Sand Ka Rasta, Jaipur. For Appellant(s) : Mr. R. K. Daga, Adv. & Mr. R. S. Chouhan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Parashar, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 11/08/2025 Order The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- applicant Rajesh Gupta (for short ‘the applicant’) against the order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan No.1, Jaipur (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for substituting him in place of Kedar Prasad Gupta, abated the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2019 passed by the Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate East, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in civil suit No. 64/1996 by which the plaintiffs’ suit was decreed in their favour. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that original plaintiff-Smt. Shyama Devi filed a suit for eviction and perpetual injunction against the firm-Jitendra Kumar Rajendra Kumar, [2025:RJ-JP:30956] (3 of 5) [CSA-206/2022] through Proprietor Gulabchand Kala mentioning therein that a Shop No.37 was rented to the firm since 01.04.1974 and presently the rent of the shop is Rs.140/- per month excluding house tax. The Proprietor of Firm-Shri Gulab Chand Kala expired on

08.04.1997 and his legal representative was not working with him. So, tenant right is not devolved to his legal representative and Vinod Jain was substituted only for contesting the suit. During the pendency of the suit, Smt. Shyama Devi also passed away and her legal representatives were substituted in her place. Gulab Chand Kala in his written statement contended that Kedar Prasad Gupta is also a partner of the said firm and the shop was taken on rent by partnership in November, 1973. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.08.2019 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated

01.08.2019, the defendant-Kedar Prasad Gupta filed an appeal before the first appellate court. During the pendency of the appeal, Kedar Prasad Gupta has died and his son Rajesh Gupta filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for his substitution but the first appellate court vide order 26.05.2022 dismissed the application filed by Rajesh Gupta and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2019 passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first appellate court vide order dated 26.05.2022 has committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the applicant under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC as the first appellate court has not conducted [2025:RJ-JP:30956] (4 of 5) [CSA-206/2022] any enquiry that Rajesh Gupta was working with Kedar Prasad Gupta. So, he falls under the definition of tenant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the first appellate court be set- aside and the first appellate court be directed to decide the appeal on merit and on the point as to whether Rajesh Gupta is entitled to be substituted as a legal representative of Kedar Prasad Gupta or not? Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the first appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that Rajesh Gupta was not working with Kedar Prasad Gupta. So, Rajesh Gupta has no right to be substituted as a legal representative of Kedar Prasad Gupta. So, the order passed by the first appellate court is according to law. So, the appeal filed by the applicant be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the applicant as well as counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the first appellate court vide order dated 26.05.2022 dismissed the application filed by the applicant in a cursory manner. In my considered opinion, the first appellate court should have decided the point whether Rajesh Gupta was required to be substituted as a legal representative of Kedar Prasad Gupta or not along with merits of the appeal. So, the order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the first appellate court deserves to be set-aside. The appeal filed by the applicant is allowed; the order dated

26.05.2022 passed by the first appellate court is set-aside and the [2025:RJ-JP:30956] (5 of 5) [CSA-206/2022] matter is remanded to the first appellate court to decide the appeal as well as the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC afresh on the point as to whether Rajesh Gupta is entitled to contest the appeal or not, after hearing the parties in accordance with law. Both the parties are directed to appear before the first appellate court on 01.09.2025. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Gourav/50 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J