A party must produce original documents such as a 'Will' to substantiate their claim for legal representation in a proceeding; failure leads to dismissal of the application.

ORDER :

(Inderjeet Singh, J.)

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner-applicant challenging the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the trial court whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner-applicant under Order 22, Rule 10, Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151 CPC was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for partition against the petitioner-applicant. During pendency of the said suit proceedings the defendant No.1- (Rameshwari Devi) died and after her death the legal representatives of the defendant No.1 (Rameshwari Devi) were taken on record by the trial court vide its order dated 22.10.2018 and husband of the petitioner was also taken on record as legal representative of the deceased-defendant No.1 (Rameshwari Devi). After one year of death of the deceased-defendant No.1 (Rameshwari Devi) the petitioner-applicant filed an application under Order 22, Rule 10, Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151 CPC which was dismissed by the trial court. Hence, these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner-applicant challenging the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the trial court.

3. Counsel for the petitioner-applicant submits that the trial court has committed serious illegality in dismissing the application filed on behalf of the petitioner-applicant and she is a legal representative of the deceased-defendant No.1 (Rameshwari Devi) as the deceased-defendant No.1 (Rameshwari Devi) executed a 'Will' in her favour. Counsel further submits that the trial court should have made enquiry in view of the provisions of Order 22, Rule 5 of CPC, therefore, the petitioner-applicant is necessary to be imleaded as legal representative of the deceased-defendant No.1 (Rameshwari Devi).

4. In support of his contention counsel relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh Kumar Bansal v. Krishna Bansal & Ors., reported in 2010 (2) SCC 162 and in the matter of Jaladi Suguna (dead) through L.R.s v. Satya Sai Central Trust & Ors. reported in 2008 (8) SCC 521 and in the matter of Varadarajan v. Kanakavalli & Ors. reported in 2020 (11) SCC 598.

5. Counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petitions and submitted that after the death of the deceased-defendant No.1 (Rameshwari Devi) as many as seven legal representatives were taken on record by the trial court vide order dated 22.10.2018 including husband of the petitioner-applicant. Counsel further submits that the original 'Will' was not produced by the petitioner-applicant before the trial court.

6. In support of the contention counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Durga Prasad v. Naveen Chandra & Ors., reported in 1996 (3) SCC 300.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. These writ petitions filed by the petitioner-applicant deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner-applicant has failed to produce the original 'Will' before the trial court in support of her application; secondly, the trial court has already taken on record the legal representatives of the deceased-defendant No.1 (Rameshwari Devi) vide its order dated 22.10.2018 including the husband of the petitioner-applicant; thirdly, the petitioner-applicant has filed the application under Order 22, Rule 10, Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151 CPC after one year of death of the deceased-defendant No.1 (Rameshwari Devi) and lastly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in my considered view, no case is made out for interference by this court under Article 227 of the Constitutio