Hitesh Kumar Sharma vs Vinod Kumar Sharma and Others

Arun Bhansali, J.

This writ petition is directed against the order Dt. 22.3.2014 passed by the trial Court, wherein in an application filed under Sec. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the respondent No. 6 Shyama has been impleaded as party. The application was filed by Vinod Kumar Sharma, father of deceased Mamta Sharma seeking issuance of succession certificate in his favour. Whereafter, the present petitioner Hitesh Kumar Sharma, husband of deceased Mamta Sharma was impleaded as party.

During the pendency of the petition, the present application was filed seeking impleadment of Shyama, the mother of the deceased, which came to be allowed by the trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the trial Court is ex-facie incorrect and the application filed was not in conformity with Rule 34 of the General Rules Civil, 1986 and therefore, the trial Court was not justified in entertaining in the application.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

The applicant Shyama, mother of the deceased is also a heir and in fact, the application in the first instance could have been filed by her and, therefore, she even otherwise is a necessary party to the proceedings and the power exercised by the trial Court under order I, Rule 10 (2) CPC cannot be faulted.

The plea raised by the petitioner regarding delay and/or noncompliance of Rule 34 of the General Rules Civil, has no substance. In view of the above, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.