The court has the discretionary power to enlarge the time fixed or granted by the Court, and the enlargement of time to bring the successor karta on record would not take away any of the defenses available to the defendants in resisting the suit for eviction on statutory grounds.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the Counsels for the parties, heard finally.

2. Since the principal relief in the Interim Application and the Writ Petition is that of extension of time to bring the successor Karta and the Manager of the HUF on record, the interim application and the writ petition are decided by this common judgment.

3. Though there have been a series of proceedings before the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes, Appeal Bench of Court of Small Causes and this Court in respect of prosecution of RAE Suit No.119/171 of 2011 by Lachmandas Tulsiram Nayar (HUF) centered around the legality of its continued prosecution after the death of its the then karta and Manager Mr. Brijbehari Tulsiram Nayar, through whom the said suit came to be instituted, against Mohan Doulatram Choitram - respondent No.5 and Madhuri Doulatram Choitram, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.9267 of 2019 and Respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.13327 of 2022, (hereinafter referred to as respondent Nos.5 and 6) the background facts necessary for determination of these application and petition can be summarised in brief as under:

(a) Lachmandas Tulsiram Nayar (HUF) instituted suit for eviction RAE Suit No.119/171/2011 through its karta and Manager Mr. Brijbehari Tulsiram Nayar, on the ground of personal bona fide requirement and alleged subletting. Mr. Jagdish Mohan Lachhmandas Nayar was also arrayed as the plaintiff, with an assertion that the latter was assisting the karta and Manager in managing the affairs of the said HUF.

(b) Plaintiff No.2 Jagdish Mohan Nayar died on 23rd February, 2014. Mr. Birjbehari Nayar the karta and the Manager of HUF died on 1st July, 2015.

(c) Since the successor karta and Manager of Lachmandas Tulsiram Nayar (HUF) was not impleaded in the suit, respondent No.6 filed an application for dismissal of the suit as abated, and, in the alternative qua plaintiff No.1 (HUF) as there was no karta to represent the said HUF. Respondent Nos.2 to 4, who were brought on record as the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.2 Jagdish Mohan Nayar, resisted the application.

(d) By an order dated 2nd April, 2018, the learned Judge was persuaded to reject the application holding, inter alia, that the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.2 were already brought on record, and, thus, the suit would not abate on account of death of karta and the Manager of HUF despite the successor karta of HUF having been not brought on record.

(e) Respondent No.6 carried the matter in revision. The Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes was persuaded to reject the revision application observing, inter alia, that it was the sweet choice or option of the plaintiffs being the members of the HUF to elect or select or appoint a new karta in place of the deceased karta. Non-impleadment of the successor karta was not fatal to the suit.

(f) Respondent No.6 assailed the orders of the learned Judge and the Appeal Bench in Writ Petition No.9267 of 2019. Banking upon provisions contained in Order XXX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code') it was urged that failure to bring the successor karta on record within a period 90 days entailed the consequence of abatement of the suit.

(g) This Court, after considering the rival submissions and the propositions of law canvassed across the bar in the light of the provisions contained in Order XXX Rule 10 of the Code and the governing precedents, was persuaded to allow the petition. The observations in paragraphs 20 to 27 encapsulate the reasons which weighed with this Court to allow the petition. They read as under:

'20. The aforesaid submissions are required to be appreciated in two perspectives. One, the necessity of impleadment of a successor Karta. Two, the right of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to prosecute the suit for eviction in the capacity of the co-owners. As regards the substitution of the successor Karta to represent the HUF, it is pertinent to note that