Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
During the pendency of the proceedings for recall of the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2001 passed in Suit No. 285 of 2001, one of the respondent Ram Naresh died. An application for substitution was filed to implead the wife of deceased Ram Naresh and Uma Kant (now deceased and represented by the petitioner and proforma respondents no. 6 to 9) as legal heirs. An objection was raised by late husband of the petitioner that he himself and proforma respondents no. 6 to 9 are liable to the substituted on the basis of the 'will' and the wife of the deceased was not liable to be substituted. Trial court vide order dated 17.8.2007 allowed the substitution application and impleaded the wife of the deceased as well as persons named in the Will as heirs and legal representative. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner went up in revision which has also been dismissed.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the courts below accepted that persons named in the will are heirs and legal representative, wife of the deceased ought not to have been impleaded.
I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The substitution of deceased party is made to carry out the litigation on his behalf and no vested right is created in the subject matter of dispute by mere substitution.
In view of the above, no illegality appears to have been committed by the courts below in passing the impugned order which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition accordingly fails and stands dismissed. Order Date :- 8.1.2010 Dcs