SBCWP No.7696/2008 Niranjan Kumar Vs. Mangi Lal 1 SBCWP No.7696/2008 Niranjan Kumar Vs. Mangi Lal DATE OF ORDER : - 12.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.CS Kotwani, for the petitioner. Mr.SG Ojha, for the respondent. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The suit was filed by Tola Ram and Gurmukh Ram both are sons of Ram Kumar. Tola Ram died and his legal representative Niranjan Kumar was taken on record. Gurmukh Ram also died on 13.1.2008, upon which plaintiff submitted an application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Rule 10 CPC and that was dismissed by the order of the trial court dated 28.2.2005. It appears from the impugned order dated 20.8.2008 itself that in earlier application, the plaintiff submitted that Gurmukh Ram plaintiff no.2 executed a registered release deed on 28.2.2005 in favour of the plaintiff no.1 and, therefore, against the name of plaintiff no.2 the word “Late” may be entered. That SBCWP No.7696/2008 Niranjan Kumar Vs. Mangi Lal 2 application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 29th May, 2008. It appears from the copy of the order dated 29th May, 2008 (Annex.5) that the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that the prayer is not covered under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC as well as because of the reason that registered release deed dated 28.2.2005 has not been submitted in the court. The present application filed under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed merely on the ground that the petitioner's earlier application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 and 10 CPC was dismissed by the trial court. In the writ petition as well as orally learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's prayer is only to properly described the party plaintiff no.2 by putting the word “Late” against the name of plaintiff no.2. The trial court has committed serious error by not granting the relief to the plaintiff making the record of the case correct so that from the copy which may be obtained by any party, the party may know that plaintiff no.2 died during the pendency of the suit itself. SBCWP No.7696/2008 Niranjan Kumar Vs. Mangi Lal 3 In view of the above reason the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed and the trial court is directed to put the word “Late” or (स०) against the name of the plaintiff no.2. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-