Ram Sanehi Das Chela v. Ram Pukar Yadav And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.17367 of 2013 (2) dt.23-05-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17367 of 2013 ====================================================== Ram Sanehi Das Chela .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Ram Pukar Yadav & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghav Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 23-05-2017 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Raghav Prasad for the petitioner.

Perused the impugned order dated 20.04.2013 passed by the learned Sub Judge V, Siwan in Title Suit No.293 of 2001 whereby the learned court below has only allowed the substitution application filed by the legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff who has substituted is not the Mahanth appointed nor he has got any concern with the property of the "Math" but without considering this aspect of the matter, the court below has allowed the substitution application.

So far substitution is concerned, a legal representative is substituted and according to the definition of the word "legal representative" which has defined under Section 2(11) C.P.C, any

Patna High Court CWJC No.17367 of 2013 (2) dt.23-05-2017 person who is time being intermingling with the property is also a legal representative. In other words, all the heirs are legal representatives but all the legal representatives are not the heirs. Thus, when the court below has only substituted the legal representatives, no prejudice is caused to the defendantpetitioner nor it can be said that the order passed by the court below is in the manner not permitted by law.

Therefore, I find no jurisdictional error in the impugned order and thus, this writ application is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Saurabh/- U T