IMPORTANT POINT
The determination of legal representatives under Order XXII Rule 5 is a summary inquiry focused on representation in the suit, not on resolving inheritance rights.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. By this petition, Petitioners challenge Order dated 6 July 2024 passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, by which application filed by them at Exhibit-29 for bringing them on record as legal representatives of deceased Plaintiff has been rejected and application at Exhibit-27 filed by Respondent No.2 has been allowed directing impleadment of Respondent No.2 as legal representative of the deceased Plaintiff. Petitioners have been directed to be impleaded as Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit.

2. There appears to be a contest between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 about their status as the legally wedded wife of the deceased Plaintiff as on the date of his death. Petitioners claim that Respondent No. 2 was already married to another man and without securing divorce in respect of her first marriage she has erroneously set up a claim about marriage with the deceased Plaintiff. It is further contended by the Petitioners that Petitioner No.2 is undisputedly the son born out of wedlock between the deceased Plaintiff and Petitioner No.1. Petitioners dispute the contention of Respondent No. 2 that there was divorce between the deceased Tenant and Petitioner No.1. Petitioners also dispute solemnisation of marriage between the deceased Plaintiff and Respondent No.2. On the contrary, it is the case of Respondent No.2 that the marriage between deceased Plaintiff and Petitioner No. 1 was dissolved by oral divorce which has taken place on 11 September 2012 which is also documented in the form of Deed of Divorce on mutual understanding. It is further contention of the Respondent No.2 that she is legally wedded wife on deceased Plaintiff on the strength of marriage certificate dated 7 July 2011.

3. It appears that the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court has proceeded to decide the above contest between the rival parties merely on the basis of the pleadings in the application and the supporting documents. The statutory scheme in the event of dispute between several parties claiming right to participate in carriage of the suit is to be found under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which provides thus :

5. Determination of questions to legal representative.-

Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court :

Provided that where such question arises before an Appellate Court, that Court may, before determining the question, direct anu subordinate Court to try the question and to return the records together with evidence, if any, recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons therefor, and the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question.

4. Thus Order 22 Rule 5 mandates the Court to determine the question as to who is the legal representatives of the deceased Plaintiff. By now, law is fairly settled that determination of such question by the Court under Order XXII Rule 5 does not amount to resolution of complex issue relating to right of inheritance to the estate of the deceased. What the Court decides under Order XXII Rule 5 is only the issue of representation of estate of the deceased for the purpose of adjudication of the suit and for nothing else. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Jaladi Suguna (Deceased) through Lrs. Vs. Satya Sai Central Trust & Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 521, Suresh Kumar Bansal Vs. Krishna Bansal & Anr., (2010) 2 SCC 162, Dashrath Rao Kate Vs. Brij Mohan Srivastava, (2010) 1 SCC 277 and of full bench of Punjab and Hariyana High Court in Mohindar Kaur & Anr. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors., AIR 1981 P&H 130.

5. The issue that arises for consideration in the present petition is the nature of enquiry that the Court is supposed to undertake while deciding the question under Order XXII Rule 5. Here again the law appears to be well settled that such enquiry is requir