Civil Revision No. 4057 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4057 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.03.2009. Paras Ram and others Petitioners Versus Jagdish Goyal Kiryana Store and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Deepak Thapar,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohan Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent No.1. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. Bhagat Ram Paul deceased filed a suit (under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act), for the possession of the land under reference, on an averment that he had been illegally dispossessed therefrom. He died during the trial. His legal representatives applied for being brought on the record on an averment that they had succeeded to his estate. The plea was resisted by the defendants-respondents. The plea was declined by observing that the suit had been filed by Bhagat Ram Paul in his capacity as attorney of Madan Lal and, thus, the legal representatives of an attorney could not be Civil Revision No. 4057 of 2008 -2- **** brought on record. The petitioners, who are legal representatives of Bhagat Ram Paul, are in revision against that order. I have heard Mr. Deepak Thapar,learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and carefully gone through the record. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argues that the disallowance of the application is invalid in view of the fact that though the deceased filed that suit in his capacity as attorney, he was infact the real purchaser of that land for consideration and it was only on account of the registration blues that resort was had to the 'attorney' procedure. In an act of resistance, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner points out that though no averment with regard to deceased being the real owner came to be made in the impugned application, an averment in detail in the relevant behalf came to be made in the rejoinder to the counter filed by the defendants therein. It is apparent from a perusal of the record that the learned Trial Court did not, at all, advert to this part of the controversy which otherwise has to be gone into for effectual determination of locus standi or otherwise of the petitioners to be brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased. The petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Civil Revision No. 4057 of 2008 -3- **** Trial Court to dispose of the relevant plea (Annexure P-5) afresh in the light of the facts noticed herein before. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 6.4.2009. March 27, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge