J U D G M E N T

MINI PUSHKARNA, J: (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 22nd August, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No. 314/2008. By way of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has transposed only the respondent no. 1 herein as plaintiff in the suit filed by their deceased father, Late Shri Bal Kishan Shokeen, for partition of the properties against his brothers. The other legal heirs, viz. the appellant herein as well as respondent nos. 1 to 4, being the other son, wife and daughters of Late Shri Bal Kishan Shokeen, have been continued as defendants in the suit filed on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHARU FAO(OS) 114/2022 Page 1 of 7 behalf of Late Shri Bal Kishan Shokeen.

2. The wife as well as the two daughters of Late Shri Bal Kishan Shokeen have not challenged the impugned order, which has been challenged by only the appellant, who is the son of Late Shri Bal Kishan Shokeen and brother of respondent no. 1 herein, who is now the sole plaintiff in the suit filed by their father in terms of the impugned order.

3. Brother of Late Shri Bal Kishan Shokeen filed a suit for partition, being CS (OS) 2719/2000. In the said suit, Late Shri Bal Kishan Shokeen filed his counter claim, which was later converted into a suit bearing no. CS (OS) 314/2008 seeking partition of properties on the basis that the said properties were Hindu Undivided Family (“HUF”) properties. During the lifetime of Late Shri Bal Kishan Shokeen, his legal heirs i.e. the appellant herein, respondent nos. 1 to 4 were impleaded as defendants in the said suit.

4. Respondent no. 1 herein filed his written statement in the suit, wherein he took the same stand as Late Shri Bal Kishan Shokeen that all the properties were Joint Hindu Family Properties. However, respondent no. 2, wife of Late Shri Bal Kishan Shokeen in her written statement submitted that all the properties mentioned in the Schedule of Properties filed along with the plaint, were the HUF properties, except House No. B-5/147, Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063 and Plot No. 6, Sector 4 Market, North West Avenue, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026, which were the individual properties of deceased plaintiff, Late Shri Bal Kishan Shokeen.

5. The appellant herein filed a separate written statement taking the same defence as that of his mother, respondent no. 2 herein.

6. Respondent nos. 3 and 4, being the daughters of Late Shri Bal Kishan Shokeen, though were impleaded as parties, failed to contest the suit and did Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHARU FAO(OS) 114/2022 Page 2 of 7 not file any written statement. Thus, they were proceeded ex-parte.

7. Late Shri Bal Kishan Shokeen, the original plaintiff in the suit, died on 8th June, 2021 and is survived by his wife, respondent no. 2 herein, two sons i.e. appellant and respondent no. 1 herein and two daughters i.e.

respondent no. 3 and 4 herein.

8. An application being I.A No. 15300/2021 was filed on behalf of appellant herein before the learned Single Judge under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking impleadment of legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff, Late Shri Bal Kishan Shokeen. By the impugned order dated 22nd August, 2022, the learned Single Judge has transposed only the respondent no. 1 herein as the plaintiff, while the other legal heirs have been continued as defendants in the manner they had been impleaded earlier. Thus, being aggrieved by the order dated 22nd August, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed.

9. On behalf of the appellant, it is contended that the application being, I.A No. 15300/2021 was filed on his behalf to take on record the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. However, by the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to transpose only the respondent no. 1 herein as a plaintiff, when there was no such prayer in the said application or any pleading to the said