In a partnership dispute, where the deceased partner's beneficiaries are already on record, the court has the discretion to reject an application to implead other legal representatives of the deceased partner.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. By the impugned order dated 21.5.2012 the learned trial Court in a suit for injunction filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, a partnership firm, M/s. Pyar Chand Roop Lai Nagda, represented by, one of its partner, namely, Bhanwar Lai Nagda S/o Khubi Lai against the defendants, namely, Roop Lai S/o Pyarchand Nagda, Dhoolchand @ Vijay Kumar S/o Roop Lai Nagda and Nitesh Kumar S/o Roop Lai, has rejected the application filed by the plaintiff, partnership firm under.Order 22 Rule 4, C.P.C.

3. By the impugned order dated 21.5.2012 the learned Court below while rejecting the application for bringing all the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 1-Roop Lai, who also claimed to be partners in the said partnership firm, held that all the legal representatives of deceased Roop Lai need not be taken on record on the application under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. of the plaintiffs - firm under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C., since the deceased defendant No. 1-Roop Lai S/o Pyar Chand Nagda had executed a "Will" on 19.11.2004, which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Udaipur, the; defendant, Roop Lai had bequeathed his share in the said partnership firm on his two sons, who were already on record as defendants No. 2 and 3 in the said suit; and therefore, all other legal representatives including the daughters of the deceased defendant, Roop Lai were not required to be impleaded in the suit.

4. Mr. Deelip Kawadia, the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal v. Krishna Bansal & Anr., reported in 2010 DNJ (SC) 32 (Para 9) , the learned trial Court ought to have impleaded all the legal representatives in the suit, lest such other legal representatives denied the existence of the said Will later on and even if the plaintiff-firm had a decree against the said existing defendants No. 2 and 3, the same would not be an executable against such other legal representatives, therefore, the learned Court below has erred in not bringing all the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 1-Roop Lai.

5. None has appeared on behalf of respondents and it appears that 'requires PF and notices have not been filed by the counsel for the petitioner so far for effecting service on the respondents.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order dated 21.5.2012 does not require any interference by this Court in the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The purpose of taking the.legal representatives on record upon the death of one of defendants is to confer the right to sue on the remaining defendants in whom the right to sue or pursue the lis survives and who can represent the interest of the. deceased defendant. The Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C., in clear terms, states that where one of two or more defendants dies and the right 1o sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, or a sole defendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit,

7. Admittedly, in the present case, the two sons, who claimed to represent the interest of deceased defendant No. 1-Roop Lai, are already on record of the suit in the present case and therefore, upon death of defendant No. 1-Roop Lai, they could continue to contest the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, firm for the limited purpose of allowing them to pursue the present litigation, the learned Court below does not appear to have committed any error in not taking on record the other legal representatives of deceased defendant, Roop Lai. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff himself that possible dispute about the "Will" executed by the deceased, Roop Lai on 19.