1. This revision is directed against the order dated 14.6.2006 passed by City Judge, Srinagar in COS 174/86 titled Ved Paul Sahani Vs. Sat Paul Sahani.

2. In a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent filed by Ved Paul Sahani against Chuni Lal S/o Late Kripa Ram C/o Prem Ji and Co. Old Hospital Road Gonikhun, Amirakadal, Srinagar the defendant expired during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff moved an application for brining the legal representatives of the deceased-defendant on record on 27.1.1996. The legal representatives caused their appearance through their Advocate Mr.Mushtaq Ahmed. The Court without formally impleading the legal representatives as defendants in the case proceeded with the suit and conducted the proceedings. On 23.5.2004 the legal representatives of the deceased defendants filed an application praying that application of plaintiff dated 27.1.1996 be decided first and they be formally brought on record as defendants in the plaint and they be allowed to make their defence appropriate to their character as legal heirs of the deceased defendants. The court considered the said application of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant and by means of the order impugned held that the application was not maintainable as the legal heirs of the deceased defendant have already been brought on record. The Court, therefore, dismissed the said application.

3. Feeling aggrieved of the said order the present revision petition has been filed by the legal representatives of the said deceased defendant mainly on the ground that the Court has ignored the mandatory provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and has without formally bringing the legal representatives as defendants in the case proceeded with the suit which has caused prejudice to them. Petitioners are also aggrieved that when this fact was brought to the notice of the learned trial Court, the Court instead of following the due procedure of law, has summarily rejected their prayer and thus caused substantial failure of justice.

4. Heard the learned counsels. I have perused the trial courts record. I have also gone through the order impugned. On consideration of the matter I find there is no ground to allow the present revision petition.

5. The record would show that admittedly the defendant Chuni Lal has died on 27.1.1996 i.e. during the pendency of the said civil suit. The plaintiffs filed an application on 27.1.1996 for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased defendants on record. The Court issued notices to the legal representatives but despite such notice they did not appear. The court directed their service through publication. On 22.3.1997 Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed, Advocate caused appearance before the trial Court on behalf of the legal heirs and sought time to produce power of attorney on their behalf. The learned counsel later produced the power of attorney on 17.5.1997 thereafter the Court dealt with the case in accordance with the procedure and recorded the statement of the witnesses produced by the legal representatives of the deceased defendants. The interim orders would show that the legal representatives of the deceased defendants have actively participated in the proceedings of the case. They have moved the Court for amendment of written statement and have even challenged some of the orders of the trial Court before this Court through various revision petitions. When the legal representatives were so actively participating and defending the case, there was no need to pass a formal order as prayed by the legal representatives to Court, to bring them on record as the defendants in the case. The trial Court has considered this aspect of the case and has passed a detailed and well reasoned order holding that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been complied with in the case. The Court has observed as under:--

"The present suit is pending before this court since 24.11.1986 and the basic principle underlying order 2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document