// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3216/2007 Bhagwan Sahai S/o Shri Dhanna Lalji Sharma Versus Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Others Date of Order ::: 30.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri O.P. Garg, Counsel for petitioner Shri Manish Sharma, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The sole plaintiff late Smt. Rama Devi filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-petitioner in the trial court on the ground of default in making the payment of monthly rent, personal bona-fide necessity and sub-letting. The suit was contested by the defendant. The trial court decreed the suit of eviction on the ground of default in making the payment of monthly rent. So far as personal bona-fide necessity and sub-letting are concerned, both the issues were decided against the plaintiff. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendant preferred an appeal and the plaintiff filed cross-objection in respect of // 2 // issues relating to personal bona-fide necessity and sub-letting. During the pendency of the regular appeal as well as the cross-objections Smt. Rama Devi, the sole plaintiff, died on 3rd April, 2006. The defendant-appellant filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC for substitution of her legal representatives – Dr. Mahendra Singh, Chandra Singh, Yogesh Choudhary, Vijay Singh, Fateh Singh, Gopal Singh, Chhagan Singh, on the record, on 22nd May, 2006. Dr. Mahendra Singh, the husband of Rama Devi, also filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC in the cross-objection contending therein that Smt. Rama Devi executed a will dated 19th December, 2005 in his favour and he is the only legal representative of Smt. Rama Devi, therefore, his name may be substituted in her place. The trial court allowed the application filed by Dr. Mahendra Singh and dismissed the application filed by defendant-appellant under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, vide order dated 26th March, 2007, which is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the defendant. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting the application under // 3 // Order 22 Rule 4 CPC in his appeal, which was filed well in time and no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that he has no objection in case Dr. Mahendra Singh, the husband of Rama Devi, is substituted in her place in the appeal filed by the defendant as well as the cross-objection filed on behalf of the plaintiff, but, so far as other legal representatives are concerned, he contended that a specific reply on behalf of other legal representatives was filed in the trial court on 26th September, 2006 contending therein that their mother had executed a will dated 19th December, 2005 in favour of their father Dr. Mahendra Singh, therefore, they have no objection in case the name of Dr. Mahendra Singh is substituted in place of Rama Devi. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, impugned order passed by the trial court and other documents annexed with the writ petition and, after considering the same, I find that the learned trial court committed an error in rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC. The application was filed well in time and there was no objection // 4 // for allowing the application filed on behalf of the appellant. So far as substitution of legal representatives are concerned, the other legal representatives except Dr. Mahendra Singh, moved an application in writing that they have no objection in substituting the name of Dr. Mahendra Singh in place of Rama Devi on the basis of the will dated 19th December, 2005. In these circumstances, I think it fit and proper to direct that the name of Dr. Mahendra Singh alone may be substituted in place of Rama Devi in the appeal as well as cross-objection both. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26th March, 2007, rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC by the trial court, is set-aside and it is directed that name of Dr. Mahendra Singh will be substituted in place of Rama Devi in the appeal as well as cross-objection, both. Their will be no order as to costs. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the present suit was filed in the year 1987 and it is 21 years old matter, therefore, a direction may be given to the appellate court to decide the appeal as soon as possible. The prayer appears to be reasonable. // 5 // It is directed that the first appellate court will try to dispose of the appeal and cross- objection expeditiously. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//