IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.R. No.: 29 of 2011 Reserved on: 24.06.2011. Decided on: 15.07.2011. ___________________________________________ Shri Paras Ram. … Petitioner. Versus Smt. Anita Devi and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Narender Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This revision petition is directed against order dated 14.12.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra at Dharamshala in civil suit No.165 of 2006. 2. Material facts, necessary for adjudication of this revision petition are that the respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiffs” for convenience 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - sake) had instituted a suit under Sections 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act for declaration. According to them, no Will was executed in favour of the petitioner/defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the defendant” for convenience sake) by Shri Munshi Ram on 16.7.2006. Plaintiff, Mela Ram died on 3.12.2009 leaving behind his widow and daughters Anita Devi, Meenakshi and Pratima. An application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved by them for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Mela Ram. Reply was filed by the defendant. According to defendant, the application was not maintainable as the legal representatives mentioned in the application were not the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) allowed the application on 14.12.2010. The present civil revision is preferred against this order dated 14.12.2010. 3. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the defendant has strenuously agued that the legal representatives mentioned in the application, filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff, Mela Ram. 4. Mr. Narender Thakur, Advocate appearing vice Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has supported the order dated 14.12.2010. - 3 - 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. Mela Ram, plaintiff died on 3.12.2009. Application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed alongwith copy of Pariwar Register. According to the copy of Pariwar Register, Anita, Meenakshi and Pratima are the only legal heirs of late Mela Ram. The defendant has not placed any tangible material on record to show that Anita, Meenakshi and Pratima are not the legal representatives of deceased Mela Ram. The application filed by the plaintiffs was within limitation. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no perversity or illegality in order dated 14.12.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra at Dharamshala. Consequently, the present civil revision being wholly misconceived is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. July 15, 2011. (sck).