IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 189 of 2016 th December Decided on 5 , 2023 Prem Chand …Petitioner Versus Garja Ram & ors. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent: Ms. Diksha Sharma, Advocate.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral CMP No. 15368 of 2023 By way of this application a prayer has been made for deleting the name of respondent No.3 on the ground that she is surv ived by the applicant/petitioner and her entire movable and immovable property has been devolved upon the applicant.

2. In view of the same the present application is allowed H and the name of deceased respondent No.3 is ordered to be deleted from the array of parties factum of the applicant/petitioner being her only legal representative is taken on record.

CMPMO No. 189 of 2016

3. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

“ It is therefore, most humbly and resp.ectfully prayed that the present petition my kindly be allowed and the order 22.04.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div) Court No.1 Sarkaghat, District Mandi, in CMA No. 224-VI/2015 in Civil Suit No. 182/07 titled as Jeetf Ram Versus Prem Chand and others may kindly be set aside/quashed in the interest of justice and fair play.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Senuior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 havingo perused the impugned orders, this Court is of the considCered view that as there is no perversity in the orders passed by learned trial Court, the present petition being devoid of any merit. In-fact, vide impugned order dated 22.4.2016, learned trial Court substituted deceased plaintiff H Jeet Ram with his proposed legal representatives namely Garja Ram who put forth his claim to be the legal representative of deceased Garja Ram on the basis a will stated to have been executed by Jeet Ram in his favour.

5. A perusal of the order demonstrates that the application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the will was a false will and that Jeet Ram was survived by his wife and sons and daughters. Incidentally till date neith.er the wife nor the children of Jeet Ram have laid any objection to the order in terms whereof Garja Ram waHs substituted in place of deceased Jeet Ram as the plaintiff in the Civil suit, therefore, means this Court fails to understand as to what was the perversity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, when there is none from the family of deceased Jeet Ram, who has put fourth his/her u claim for being substituted as plaintiff in place of deceasedo Jeet Ram. Thus, as this Court does not finds any infirmitCy with the order passed by learned trial Court dated 22.4.20216 in terms whereof the applicants are substituted as the legal representative of deceased Jeet Ram on the basis of will executed by late Sh. Jeet Ram, and further the H transposition from defendant plaintiff, this petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. Interim order which was granted by this Court on 19.5.2016 is hereby vacated.

6. Taking into the consideration the fact that the civil suit was filed as far as back 2007, therefore, learned trial Court is request to make an endeavor to decide the same as expeditiously as possible.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge December 06, 2023 (gaurav)