The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of requisite information, supportive material, and veracity in the averments made in an application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for impleadment as legal representatives of the deceased.

ORDER

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Misc. Application No.13222/2014 whereby, an application filed by the respondents no.2/1 to 2/9 under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for taking on record them as legal representatives of deceased Ram Naraian Saini, the power of attorney holder and legatee of the deceased applicant no.2, has been allowed.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 Shri Kaluram and the deceased respondent no.2, Shri Jodharam Saini filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC dated 17.05.2014 for setting aside an ex parte judgement and decree dated 07.12.1993 passed against them and late Shri Sheoram in a suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner herein. During its pendency, stating that not only the original applicant no.2 has expired, but, his power of attorney holder Shri Ram Narain Saini has also expired in whose favour, a Will dated 05.04.2014 was also executed by the applicant no.2 conferring upon him right to contest the litigation and they being the legal representatives of deceased Shri Ram Narain Saini, be impleaded as such, the respondent no.2/1 to 2/9 filed an application as stated herein above. The application has been allowed by the learned Trial court vide its order dated 28.05.2018, the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition.

3. Assailing the order, Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application filed by the respondent no.2/1 to 2/9 was bereft of the requisite averments so as to maintain it under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC in as much as even the date of death of the applicant no.2, Shri Jodha Ram was not mentioned therein.

4. She submits that indisputably, the applicant no.2, Shri Jodha Ram had expired on 24.12.2015 and the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC automatically stood abated after the expiry the period of 90 days and therefore, in absence of an application to set aside the abatement along with an application seeking condonation of delay, the application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, even otherwise also, could not have been allowed. Learned counsel further submitted that since the main application itself stood abated, the subject application could not have been allowed without issuing notice to the petitioner/non applicant.

5. Learned counsel submits that a copy of the power of attorney allegedly executed by late Shri Jodha Ram in favour of late Shri Ram Narain Saini was not placed on record. However, she would submit that in view of settled law that on expiry of the principal, agency, i.e., the power of attorney comes to an end. Therefore, the power of attorney , if any, issued by late Shri Jodha Ram in favour of late Shri Ram Narain Saini also came to an end on 24.12.2015, the date on which Shri Jodha Ram expired. With regard to the right of Shri Ram Narain Saini in the subject property or for that matter, right of the respondents no.2/1 to 2/9 based on the will dated 05.04.2014 allegedly executed by late hri Jodha Ram, learned counsel submitted that its copy was not placed on record by the applicants respondents in absence whereof, the averments made in this regard could not have been relied upon. She submitted that even otherwise also, as per the contents of the application, only right to contest the litigation was conferred vide Will dated 05.04.2014 in favour of late shri Ram Narain Saini, which, not being transferable or inheritable, did not confer any right on the applicants respondents no.2/1 to 2/9 to contest the litigation as legal representatives of deceased Shri Ram Narain Saini.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Trial court has erred in allowing the application without appreciating all these important aspects of the matter and hence, the order dated 25.05.2018 cannot be sustained in the eye of l