O.A. 25/2021 in CS (OS) 1965/2012

Page 1 of 3

$~47 (original)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

O.A.25/2021, I.A.13872/2021 & I.A.13873/2021 in

+

CS(OS) 1965/2012

SONAKSHI GUPTA

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr.Simarpal Singh Sawhney,

Adv.

versus

L.R GUPTA ,HUF & ORS

..... Defendants

Through:

Mr.

Sameer

Vashisht,

Ms.

Sanjana Nangia and Mr. Manaswy Jha,

Advs. for D-3/appellant in OA

Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Adv. for D-21 & 22

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

O R D E R (O R A L)

%

27.10.2021

O.A.25/2021

1.

This is an appeal challenging an order dated 28^th September,

2021, passed by the Joint Registrar to the extent the order allows

I.A.3868/2021, preferred by the plaintiff under Order XXII Rule 4 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2.

The impugned order, to the extent the appellant is aggrieved

thereby, reads as under:

“IA 3868/2021 (under Order XXII Rule 4 read with

Section 151 CPC seeking impleadment of Lrs of deceased

defendant no.2 Sh. L.R. Gupta)

2021:DHC:3419

O.A. 25/2021 in CS (OS) 1965/2012

Page 2 of 3

Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that the proposed LRs of

deceased defendant no.2 Sh. L.R. Gupta already stand

impleaded as defendant nos.3, 4 and 6 in the instant suit. In

view of aforesaid, it has been prayed that deceased defendant

no. 2 may be deleted from the array of the parties.

Despite being given sufficient opportunity, no reply has been

filed on behest of any of the defendants. Even otherwise, it is

evident from the record that the proposed LRs are already

impleaded as parties.

In view of aforesaid, application stands allowed and deceased

defendant no.2 is deleted from the array of the parties.

Accordingly, both IAs stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.”

3.

Mr. Vashisht’s essential contention is that Defendants 4 and 6

are not entitled to be treated as legal representatives of the deceased

Defendant 2, Mr. L.R. Gupta. He expresses an apprehension that the

plaintiff may use the impugned order passed by the Joint Registrar as

evidence of title of Defendants 4 and 6 in the estate of the deceased

Defendant 2.

4.

Mr. Vashisht also submits that Defendant 2 could not have been

deleted from the array of parties, but that Defendant 2, having expired,

would have to continue to remain a party to the suit albeit through his

legal representatives, who, according to Mr. Vashisht, is Defendant 3

alone and not Defendants 4 and 6.

5.

Regarding the submission that Defendant 2 would have to

continue to remain a party in the suit even after he expired, I do not

find anything in the CPC which supports this submission. Rather,

2021:DHC:3419

O.A. 25/2021 in CS (OS) 1965/2012

Page 3 of 3

Order I Rule 3 of the CPC specifically requires persons to be

impleaded as defendants. Once a person has expired, I find nothing

irregular in the decision of the Joint Registrar to delete the deceased

defendant from the array of parties.

6.

Insofar as the apprehension, expressed by Mr. Vashisht, of the

possibility of any one of the parties to the litigation using the

impugned order dated 28^th September, 2021 as a ground to urge title,

or interest of Defendants 4 to 6 in the estates of the deceased

Defendant No. 2, the apprehension may, in my view, be assuaged by a

clarification that the order dated 28^th September, 2021, shall merely be

treated as impleading the persons who, according to the plaintiff, were

the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. It shall not

preclude any of the other parties to the litigation including the present

appellant from questioning, at any stage, the title or entitlement of

Defendants 4 and 6 to the estate of the deceased Defendant No.2.

7.

With the aforesaid clarification, this appeal stands disposed of.

I.A.13872/2021 & I.A.13873/2021

8.

In view of the order passed in O.A. 25/2021, these applications

also stand disposed of.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J

OCTOBER 27, 2021/kr