AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 286 wordsJ.V. Gupta, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated January 25, 1988, whereby the application filed by the legal representatives of Sham Kaur alias Shamo, deceased, was allowed. She was one of the Plaintiffs in the suit filed for declaration.
During the pendency of the suit the said Sham Kaur died and her legal representatives who are her nephews (brother''s children) in relation, made an application for impleading them as her legal representatives on the strength of the will dated August 5, 1987, in their favour. The said application was contested on behalf of the Defendants. The trial Court after framing the issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence, came to the conclusion that the said legal representatives were entitled to be brought on the record. The trial Court observed,--
An enquiry in the matter of determination of a legal representative under Order XXII Rule 5, CPC is by and large summary. So, in view of the said will, I am of the view that the applicants can be substituted as legal representatives of Sham Kaur deceased because at this stage the genuineness of the will is not to be decided.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the finding arrived at by the trial Court was wrong and illegal.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The trial Court itself has observed that at that stage the genuineness of the will is not to be decided finally. The legal representatives have been brought on the record for the purposes of the suit.
Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.