ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Utpal Panchal on behalf of the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar with learned Advocate Mr. Parv Gupta on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the learned 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, dated 11.04.2022 below Exh. 158 in Special Civil Suit No. 593 of 2012, whereby the present respondent No.2 is joined as a party in the said civil suit.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Panchal for the petitioner would submit that the original plaintiff was owner of a parcel of land bearing Revenue Survey No. 276 situated at village Hazira, District Surat, and whereas the present petitioner had purchased the said land from the original plaintiff vide a registered sale deed dated 03.02.1999. Learned Advocate would submit that 13 years after the said sale, the original land owner had filed a civil suit being Special Civil Suit No. 593 of 2012, whereby the registered sale deed was sought to be cancelled. It is submitted by the learned Advocate that during pendency of the said suit, the original plaintiff had expired on 01.10.2021 and whereas according to the learned Advocate, the suit had abated thereafter, more particularly since the original plaintiff did not have any legal heirs. It is submitted that vide an application Exh. 158 dated 06.11.2021, the respondent No.2 as trustee of the respondent No.2-Trust had preferred an application for being joined as legal representative of the original plaintiff, more particularly contending that vide a registered Will dated 22.05.1995, the original plaintiff had bequeathed the property in question in favour of the said temple trust and whereas on account of the fact the said applicant- respondent No.2 herein would be interested in the outcome of the suit, and therefore the applicant-respondent No.2 herein be joined as legal representative. Learned Advocate would submit that while the present petitioner had contested the said application, yet without appreciating the contention of the present petitioner in its proper perspective, vide the impugned order dated 11.04.2022 the learned Civil Court had joined the present respondent No.2 as legal representative of the original plaintiff in the suit in question.

3.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Panchal would draw the attention of this Court to the registered sale deed in favour of the present petitioner dated 03.02.1999 and would submit that at Page No.6 of the sale deed, there is a recital whereby the original plaintiff i.e. owner of the property has clearly stated that she does not stand by the registered Will dated 22.05.1995 and whereas she now wishes to cancel the said Will and she wishes to sell the property in question to the present petitioner by way of the said sale deed. Learned Advocate would submit that the such recital in the registered sale deed, renders the Will in favour of the respondent No.2 as ineffective and to be treated as cancelled. Learned Advocate would submit that such being the position, on the strength of such a Will, the respondent No.2 ought not to have been joined as legal representative of the original plaintiff. Learned Advocate would also submit that the PTR of the trust in question at some point of time had noted that the land belong to the trust and whereas later on even from the PTR the land had been scored off showing as the land not belonging to the trust in question. Learned Advocate would submit that such being the position, there not being any thing in existence which would show that the trust had any interest whatsoever in the land in question, therefore the learned Civil Court had gravely erred in joining the respondent No.2 as legal representative of the original plaintiff. Learned Advocate Mr. Panchal would therefore request that the impugned order may be set aside by this Court and this Court may declare that the suit having been abated upon the demise of the original plaintiff.

4. This petition is vehe