IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Writ Petition No. 641 of 2008 With CLMA No. 1969 of 2008 Har Prasah Sah .……… Petitioner Versus Ram Gopal deceased through its legal representatives And others .……… Respondents Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed for seeking the following reliefs :- “a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 29.02.2008 and order dated 11.09.2007 as contained as Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this writ petition. b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the court below to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 as a preliminary issue. c) Issue, any other order or direction which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances the case. d) Award cost of the petition to the Petitioner.” 3. In substance, the respondent Ram Gopal (deceased) filed a suit through his attorney-Ashok Kumar before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Haldwani, Nainital against the petitioner Har Prasad Sah for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of this suit, the plaintiff-Ram Gopal died on 20th May, 2006. Thereafter, on 07/09/2006 a substitution application was moved by Ravi Gupta alongwith an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act and an application for setting aside the abatment of the suit.Meanwhile, another application for substitution was filed on 28/09/2006 by the son Ravi Gupta and his sisters.The trial court after hearing the parties allowed the applications and directed that the legal heirs of the plaintiff Ram Gopal be brought on record. It was further observed that the power of attorney of Ram Gopal has been ceased automatically from the date of his death. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order preferred a revision petition before the learned District Judge which was transferred to the Additional District Judge, Haldwani, Nainital. After hearing the parties, the revision petition was also dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner only raised the contention that there were two applications pending at the time of the disposal of the applications, hence the trial court should have dismissed the petition for substitution. 5. At the outset, I do not find any force in the said contention. The first application was filed on 07/09/2006 as a son of the plaintiff to be impleaded in place of Ram Gopal. Later on, he also filed affidavit alongwith the application on 28/09/2006 for substitution of his sisters alongwith him also. I do neither find any illegality in the said two applications filed by the respondents nor any fault in the finding recorded by both the courts below in disposing of the applications of the respondent/plaintiff under Order 22, Rule 3 of C.P.C. I am completely in agreement with the findings recorded by both the courts below. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition devoids of merit and is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly in limine. 7. The CLMA No. 1969 of 2008 also stands disposed of accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 11.04.2008 Shiv