1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant aggrieved against order dated 25.11.2014, whereby, application filed by him purportedly under Order 22, Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit has been rejected by the trial court.

2. The respondent-Chunnilal filed a suit seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 22.08.1996 executed by Smt. Oti in favour of petitioner-Dharma Shanker, inter alia, with the averments that the suit property situated at Bhatto Ka Bass, Jalore belonged to one Smt. Gulabi Bai; the plaintiff was adopted son of said Smt. Gulabi Bai and after death of said Smt. Gulabi Bai, the property owned by her vests in him; the suit property was transferred by Smt. Oti, who is related to said Smt. Gulabi Bai claiming a oral Will in her favour and, based on said oral Will, she transferred the suit property to Dharma Shanker; the suit, which was filed on 17.02.1998, remained pending, wherein, Smt. Oti filed her written statement seeking dismissal of the suit filed by Chunnilal; petitioner - Dharma Shanker also filed his written statement seeking dismissal of the suit.

3. On 08.11.2005 it was brought to the notice of the Court that defendant No. 1 - Smt. Oti had expired.

4. An application was filed by the plaintiff - Chunnilal, inter alia, indicating that on information given by the defendant, it has come to the notice of the plaintiff that Smt. Oti has expired; the plaintiff is not aware of any legal representatives of Smt. Oti; if the defendants have any information, the same may be got produced and, ultimately, it was prayed that as there are no legal representatives, name of Smt. Oti be deleted from the array of parties.

5. By order dated 18.07.2006, it was noticed by the trial court that as per the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 - Smt. Oti had no legal representative; the defendants have also pleaded want of information regarding any legal representative and, therefore, her name was deleted from the array of parties.

6. Whereafter, an application was filed by petitioner defendant, inter alia, submitting that the main basis of the suit pertains to rights of Smt. Oti, the reply whereof, can only be given by her legal representatives; her legal representatives have not been impleaded as party and her name has been deleted from the array of parties; Smt. Oti is a necessary party and, in absence of her legal representatives, the suit was not maintainable and hearing on the maintainability of the suit was necessary and it was prayed that as the legal representatives have not been brought on record the suit being not maintainable be dismissed.

7. The application was replied to by the plaintiff and it was indicated that the name of defendant - Smt. Oti was deleted by the order of the Court, against which, neither any appeal nor revision seeking setting aside of the order was filed and, as such, the application was not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. Reliance was placed on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hardeva v. Ismail, AIR 1970 Raj. 167 .

8. The trial court after hearing the parties by its order dated 21.07.2009 came to the conclusion that the order dated 18.07.2006, whereby, name of Smt. Oti was deleted from the array of parties, has not been questioned by way of filing an appeal or revision; no information has been placed before the Court regarding existence of legal representatives of Smt. Oti and that the plaintiff has deliberately not brought such legal representatives on record and, therefore, by order dated 18.07.2006 by which the name has been deleted from the array of parties has become final and application being not maintainable was dismissed.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9047/2009.

10. This Court by order dated 17.04.2013 on the submission made by counsel for the petitioner - Dharma Shanker that the petitioner has found out that there are some legal representatives of deceased Smt. Oti, wh