ORDER

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated

15.12.2021, passed by Learned Civil Judge (II), Amb, District Una, H.P., whereby application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, having been filed by the respondent, praying therein for his impleadment/substitution in place of original plaintiff namely Narayan Parkash Bharti, who expired during the pendency of the suit, came to be allowed, the petitioner, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for setting aside the same .

2. Precisely, facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that deceased Narayan Parkash Bharti, Chela Veer Parkash Bharti, resident of Village Nari (Chintpurni), Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. filed civil suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, seeking therein declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of land comprised in Khewat No.272, Khatoni No. 360, Khasra No. 2527, measuring 0-0090 hects, as entered in Nakal Jamabandi for the year 2009-10, situate at village Nari (Chintpurni), Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. Besides above, deceased plaintiff, as named hereinabove, also sought declaration that sale deed dated 1.3.2016 vide Vasika No. 50 in favour of defendant No.1, i.e. petitioner herein, in respect of aforesaid suit land is illegal and invalid.

3. Before the suit, as detailed hereinabove, could be decided, original plaintiff named hereinabove, expired and respondent No.1, Sh. Rajeshwar Bharti, claiming himself to be Chela of Mahant Narayan Parkash Bharti, filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, Annexure P-4, praying therein for his impleadment/substitution, as plaintiff in place of deceased plaintiff Narayan Parkash Bharti. Respondent No.1, specifically averred in the application that during his life time, deceased plaintiff Narayan Parkash Bharti has accepted him as Chela and after his death, he has been made Mahant of the Gaddi and as such, he is entitled to be impleaded/substituted in place of deceased plaintiff Narayan Parkash Bharti, who during his life time had filed the suit. With a view to substantiate aforesaid claim, respondent No1, Rajeshwar Bharti, placed heavy reliance upon Mahantnama executed/prepared on 5.3.2019 by Sadhus and Saints gathered at the Asharam/Mandir to attend death ceremony of deceased Narayan Parkash Bharti.

4. Aforesaid prayer made on behalf of respondent No.1, came to be resisted by petitioner Vinod Kumar by way of filing reply to the application, Annexure P-6. Learned Court below on the basis of pleadings adduced on record by respective parties allowed the application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC vide order dated 15.12.2021. In the aforesaid background, petitioner Vinod Kumar has approached this court in the instant proceedings.

5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned by the court below while passing the impugned order, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for.

6. Careful perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner to the application for impleadment nowhere reveals that claim of respondent No.1, Rajeshwar Bharti that he is the legal representative of deceased Mahant Narayan Parkash Bharti ever came to be disputed. If the reply to the application filed on behalf of the petitioner is read in its entirety, there is no specific denial that respondent No.1, Rajeshwar Bharti is/was Chela/Disciple of late Narayan Parkash Bharti, rather application has been contested on the ground that neither original plaintiff Mahant Narayan Parkash Bharti nor his Chela Rajeshwar Bharti belong to State of Himachal Pradesh nor they are/ were competent to execute the sale deed, if any and, therefore, suit having been filed by them deserves to be dismissed. Since, petitioner failed to place on record documents worth credence, suggestive of the fact that respondent No.1, Rajeshwar Bharti, is not the legal representative of deceased Mahant Narayan Parka