The court held that at the stage of deciding the substitution application, the courts below had examined a prima facie case and ordered for transposition of impleaded defendants as plaintiffs in the suit being vendees of plaintiffs. The court held that there was no illegality in the impugned order passed for transposition of defendant as plaintiff in the suit.

Court No. - 7

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25558 of 2022

Petitioner :- Mohan And 2 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Achchhey Lal Tiwari,Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi,Keshari Kumar

Tiwari

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

Heard Mr. Achchhey Lal Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners.

The brief facts of the case are that a suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A.

& L.R. Act has been filed by Ram Naresh (husband of respondent no.5)

as well as Dal Shringar impleading the petitioners as defendants.

Madhuri, Vinod & Vikas were also impleaded as defendants nos.5, 6 & 7

in the suit. Plaintiff no.1, Ram Naresh has died accordingly respondent

no.5 was substituted as plaintiff no.1/1. Plaintiff no.2, Dal Shringar has

also died during pendency of the suit accordingly, respondent nos.5, 6 &

7 filed an application dated 9.10.2017 that they may be transposed as

plaintiff nos.3, 4 & 5 due to death of plaintiff no.2, Dal Shringar being his

vendees. Petitioners filed their objection to the application dated

9.10.2017. Petitioners have filed abatement application also due to

death of plaintiff. Respondent no.3 vide order dated 20.9.2021 allowed

the application dated 9.10.2017. Petitioners challenged the order dated

9.10.2017 through revision before Commissioner under Section 333 of

U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which has been dismissed by Commissioner vide

order dated 21.3.2022, hence this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit under Section

229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been filed by the Ram Naresh Singh and

Dal Shringar Singh. He further submitted that during pendency of the

suit, Ram Naresh Singh and Dal Shringar Singh have died accordingly,

petitioners applied for abatement of the suit. He further submitted that

one amendment application has been filed by the contesting

respondents stating that Ram Naresh Singh and Dal Shringar Singh

have transferred the property in favour of contesting respondents who

were impleaded as defendants in the suit so the defendants be

transposed as plaintiffs in the aforementioned suit, under Section 229B

of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further submitted that the trial Court without

considering the averment made in the abatement application filed by the

petitioners as well as objection filed to the amendment application has

allowed the application filed by the contesting respondents and ordered

for transposition of defendants as plaintiffs in the suit. He further

submitted that the revision filed against the order of the trial Court has

been dismissed on the ground that the order passed is interlocutory in

nature. He further submitted that the impugned order be set aside and

matter be remanded back for deciding the abatement application filed by

the petitioners afresh. He next submitted that the persons who have

been transposed as plaintiffs on the basis of sale deed, their sale deed

has been challenged in the civil Court and even the mutation order has

not been passed on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed in

favour of the contesting respondents. He further submitted that the writ

petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the

petitioners and perused the record.

There is no dispute about the fact that the suit under Section 229B of

U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been filed by the husband of respondent no.5

along with respondent no.6 and during pendency of the suit proceeding,

the plaintiffs have died and the application filed for transposition by the

contesting respondents has been allowed and the objections filed by

petitioners have been accordingly disposed of.

At the stage of deciding the substitution application prima facie case has

been examined by the courts below and ordered for transposition of

impleaded defendants as plaintiffs in the suit being vendees of plaintiffs

as such there