Court No. - 19
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8920 of 2018 Petitioner :- Jay Prakash Respondent :- Smt.Manju Dutt And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by VI Addl. District Judge in Civil Appeal No.1 of 2016, whereby application 29-Ga filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment of Smt. Babli Sharma and Smt. Mamta Sharma as party respondents to the appeal, has been dismissed. It seems that in Original Suit No.1058 of 2007 (earlier Misc. Case No.12 of 1986) filed by the petitioner, against Mahendra Dutt and others for specific performance of an agreement for sale Mahendra Dutt, defendant no.1 died on 27.10.1991. The petitioner filed application substituting Manju Dutt (widow), Mayank Dutt (son) and Shashank Dutt (son) as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant. The suit was ultimately decided against the petitioner by judgement dated 28.11.2015, aggrieved whereby, the petitioner filed Civil Appeal No.1 of 2016. During pendency of the Civil Appeal, the petitioner filed an application Paper No.29-Ga seeking impleadment of Babli Sharma and Mamta Sharma. According to him, he was not having knowledge of the fact that they are also heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant. The appellate court has disbelieved the version of the petitioner that he was not having knowledge that the deceased defendant also had daughters. For coming to such conclusion, the appellate court has placed reliance on paragraph 17 of the written statement filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant on 27.7.2008, wherein it was mentioned that a specific time was stipulated for execution of sale deed as Mahendra Dutt had to marry her daughters and in connection with which he required money. The court had inferred from the aforesaid stand taken in the written statement that the petitioner was having full knowledge of the fact that the deceased defendant also had daughters.
Accordingly, the appellellate court has disbelieved the explanation furnished by the petitioner for not being able to file application for their impleadment in time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same stand before this Court that there was delay in filing application for their impleadment /substitution on account of lack of information.
Be that as it may, this Court is of the opinion that once the aforesaid two daughters of the deceased defendant were not brought on record before the trial court, the legal consequences which had flown out of the said inaction, could not be permitted to be wiped off by permitting the petitioner to bring them on record in appeal.
In such view of the matter, even otherwise, this Court is of the opinion that the application filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment of the two daughters of the deceased defendant in appeal was wholly misconceived and was rightly rejected.
The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 30.11.2018 skv