JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral).

CM-6108-CII-2025

This is an application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC for impleading the legal heir of Late Sh. Darshan Parkash, who was the proprietor of respondent No.1.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit of petitioner No.1, the same is allowed and Smt. Usha Gupta, wife of Late Sh. Darshan Parkash is ordered to be brought on record as the legal heir of Late Sh. Darshan Parkash.

Amended memorandum of parties is taken on record.

The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

CR-472-2025

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.10.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak vide which the application moved by respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order XXII CPC for impleading Smt. Usha Gupta as the legal heir of the plaintiff was allowed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a suit (Annexure P-1) for permanent injunction was filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff M/S National Hardware House through its proprietor Sh. Darshan Parkash. During the pendency of the suit, an application (Annexure P-2) for impleading the legal heirs of Sh. Darshan Parkash who was the proprietor of respondent No.1/plaintiff was moved stating that Sh. Darshan Parkash had expired on 16.11.2020 after which Smt. Usha Gupta was the proprietor of the Firm. This application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-3) stating that there were other legal heirs of Sh. Darshan Parkash also. The application was, however, allowed vide the impugned order dated 07.10.2024, leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. The sole argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the application for bringing on record Smt. Usha Gupta as the legal heir of Sh. Darshan Parkash was moved within a delay of three years, for, Sh. Darshan Parkash is stated to have been expired on 16.11.2020 whereas the application was moved on 26.07.2024.

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners but find the same to be devoid of merit.

6. Smt. Usha Gupta was impleaded as the legal heir only for the purposes of continuation of the suit. Even otherwise, Order XXII Rule 3 Sub-Rule 2 was amended by the High Court laying down as under:

'Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall not abate as against the deceased plaintiff and the judgment may be pronounced notwithstanding his death which shall have the same effect as if has been pronounced before the death took place, and the contract between the deceased and the pleader in that event shall continue to subsist.'

7. Under the circumstances, filing of the application for bringing on record that legal heir of Sh. Darshan Parkash would not be barred by limitation and the suit would not abate. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court considered the matter from the correct perspective and rightly allowed the application for bringing on record Smt. Usha Gupta as the legal heir of Sh. Darshan Parkash.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.