IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 1 of 2009 Reserved on : 23.7.2010 Decided on : 29.7. 2010 Partap Chand …Petitioner Versus Pritam Chand and others ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. S.M.Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Kuldip Singh , Judge The order dated 1.11.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nadaun in case No. 147 of 2004 has been assailed in the present revision. 2. The brief facts are that petitioner has filed a suit for declaration that the mutation Nos. 21, 22, 23 based upon gift deeds executed by Lachhman in favour of petitioner and respondents No.1, 2 are null and void as the land had come to Lachhman by way of succession and was ancestral. The parties are governed by agriculture custom previously of Kangra and now of Hamirpur District. The said mutations 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 have no effect on reversionary rights of petitioner and other heirs. In the suit respondents No.1 and 2 were defendants 1 and 2 respectively and Lachhman was defendant No.3. 3. On 1.9.2004 respondents No.1 and 2 and lachhman were proceeded exparte and the suit was fixed for evidence of the petitioner. On 7.6.2006 an application under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC was filed for impleading legal representatives of defendant No.3 Lachhman died on 5.11.2005. Smt. Gurdevi widow and legal representative of defendant No.3 Lachhman was proceeded ex-parte. The other legal representatives of defendant No.3 filed reply on 13.8.2008 to the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC. The learned Civil Judge in order dated 1.11.2008 has observed that respondents 1, 2 legal representatives of deceased Lachhman are already on record. The learned Civil Judge ordered that legal representatives 3(a) to 3(d) be brought on record. It was further ordered that since respondents No.1 and 2 have been brought on record as legal representatives of defendant No.3 Lachhman, therefore, an opportunity was given to them along with other newly impleaded defendants to file written statement and the suit was fixed for filing written statement on behalf of newly impleaded defendants. The second part of the order dated 1.11.2008 has been assailed in revision whereby the learned Civil Judge has allowed the legal representatives including respondents No.1 and 2 to file written statement. 3 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, none appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the defendants including deceased defendant No.3 Lachhman were proceeded exparte on 1.9.2004. The application for bringing on record legal representatives of defendant No.3 was contested by defendants 3(b) to 3(f) and even in their reply they have not prayed for filing written statement. The respondents No.1 and 2 who were defendants No. 1 and 2 in the suit were already proceeded exparte. The learned Civil Judge without their being any prayer either on behalf of the petitioner or on behalf of the respondents allowed legal representatives of defendant No.3 to file written statement. 5. The defendants were proceeded exparte on 1.9.2004. The application under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC was for bringing on record legal representatives of deceased defendant No.3. The issue before the learned Civil Judge was either to allow the application or to dismiss the application. It was nobody’s case that any of the defendants including defendants 3(b) to 3(f) be permitted to file written statement. The learned Civil Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in allowing legal representatives of defendant No.3 to file written statement. In these circumstances, the impugned order to the extent it has allowed filing of written statement to defendants 1, 2 and other legal representatives of 4 defendant No.3 is set-aside, remaining order is upheld. In view of the disposal of main petition, CMP No. 3 of 2009 is rendered infructuous. The record of the Court below be sent back immediately. The petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nadaun on 19.8.2010. No costs. July 29, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge. .