The Appellate Court has discretion in determining legal representation without remanding to the Trial Court, and the validity of a Will can be established through documentary evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Harkesh Manuja, J.

By the way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to an order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Addl. District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the First Appellate Court’), whereby application filed at the instance of applicant-Karamvir Singh seeking his impleadment as legal representative of deceased Harbans Singh/plaintiff stands allowed.

2. In the given facts, respondent/plaintiff-Harbans Singh filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment against petitioner qua the property i.e. house no. 1683 (Ground & First Floor), situated at Phase 3B2, SAS Nagar (Mohali). The suit was decreed in a favour of Harbans Singh/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 11.01.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Mohali. Aggrieved thereof, petitioner/defendant filed a Civil Appeal No.132 of 2016. During its pendency, Harbans Singh/plaintiff expired on 12.04.2021 followed by an application dated 12.01.2022 filed on behalf of applicant-Karamvir Singh seeking his impleadment as legal representative of the deceased. The said application was through opposed at the instance of petitioner, however, the same came allowed vide dated 30.03.2022 by the Addl. District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

3. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing revision petition bearing CR No. 1282 of 2023, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 03.10.2023 and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Court for adjudication upon the application filed on the behalf of the applicant-Karamvir Singh seeking his impleadment as legal representative of deceased Harbans Singh with the following observation :-

“10. Considering the submissions addressed by both the sides and taking note of the judgment reported in Jaladi Suguna (dead) through L.Rs case (supra), I hereby deem it appropriate to set aside the order dated 30.03.2022 by directing the respondent herein to file his application afresh under order XXII Rules 5 CPC and accordingly, the petitioner herein would also be given a chance/effective opportunity to file his detailed reply. Thereupon, the same would be decided a fresh by the learned Appellate Court after taking note of the provisions of law under order XXII Rule 5 CPC and the judgement referred herein above.

11. Ordered accordingly. The said exercised would be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

12. Accordingly, both the petitions stand disposed of”

4. In pursuance thereof, fresh application dated 16.10.2023 seeking his impleadment as legal representative of deceased of Harbans Singh claiming himself to be the son, was filed by the applicant-Karamvir Singh and reply to the said application was also filed by the petitioner. In view of such situation, the First Appellate Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether Sh. Harbans Singh has expired on 12.04.2021? OPA

2. Whether Karamvir Singh is the only adopted son of deceased Harbans Singh and therefore, he is his legal representative? OPA

3. Whether Karamvir Singh is the legal representative of the deceased Harbans Singh on the basis of Will dated 14.02.2011? OPA”

4. Relief”

5. Both the sides were afforded opportunity to lead their respective evidence in relation to the aforesaid issues. Finally vide the impugned order dated 31.05.2024,the First Appellate Court allowed the application filed on the behalf of Karamvir Singh while impleading him as legal representative of deceased Harbans Singh for the purposes of pursuing the Civil Appeal No.132 of 2016. Aggrieved thereof, the present revision petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petition submitted that the plea regarding adoption of Karamvir Singh by deceased Harbans Singh was reject by the First Appellate Court, however, the same was nowhere challenged by the applicant-Karamvir Singh and, thus, the only cause of action on the basis of the which the applican