Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M)664/2016&CM Nos.24406-24408/2016
BALKISHAN Petitioner
Through Mr.ShekharDasiand Mohd.Talma, Advs.
Through
AMRITKAUR Petitioner
Through Mr.ShekharDasiand Mohd.Talma, Advs.
Through
13.07.2016
ORDER
1. By the present petition the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 25.1.2016 by which the trial Court allowed the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC read with Section 151 CPC to implead respondent No.5 Balwinder Singh as the LR of the deceased petitioner (in the Eviction Petition),namely,Shri Devender Singh.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is erroneous inasmuch as firstly the said respondent No.5 had earlier moved an application for impleadment claiming that he was an 2016:DHC:8621 SPA holderoflate ShriDevenderSingh. Midwayduringtheadjudicationof the application he withdrew the said application. Now,a fresh application has beenfiled under Order22Rule3CPCexplainingthatrespondents No.l to 4 are the wife and children oflate Shri Devender Singh. He avers that instead of impleading these respondents No.l to 4 as LRs of deceased Devender Singh the impugned order has impleaded respondent No.5 Shri Balwinder Singh erroneously and wrongly. Secondly, he relies on the application filed by the respondents under Order22Rule 3 CPC to contend that as per the prayer clause the prayer in the application was to implead respondents No.l to 4 and not respondent No.5. The impugned order has wrongly impleaded respondent No.5. He further submits that there was a delay in moving this application and hence alongwiththe application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC an application under Section 5 ofthe Limitation Act wasfiled whichhas not been dealtwith bytheimpugned order.
3. In my opinion,there is no merit in the contentions ofthe petitioner. Paragraph 5 of the application filed by respondent under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC reads as follows:-
5. That the LRs ofDevender Singh have no objection of the name ofSPA Sh.Balwinder Singh is substituted in place ofLate Sh.Devender Singh as being ajointfamily andjoint property ifit will notcause any prejudice to the LRsofLate Sh.Devender Singh." The said application is also signed by respondents No.l to 4.In the light ofthese facts,the impugned order rightly impleaded respondent No.5 as the LR.
4. As far as the contention about the application under Section 5 ofthe Limitation Act is concerned, a perusal of the application filed by the respondents under Order22Rule3CPC would show thatit has been averred that the pending application has been moved within time and the delay in filing the present application was on account of pendency of the earlier application for which appropriate_exclusion is sought under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly,the said contention ofthe petitioner hasno merits.
5. There is no merit in the present petitions. Both the petitions are dismissed. A/0 JULY 13,2016 n JAYANT NATH,J