This time, the appellant herein, feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Civil Judge, filed a writ application in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior which came to be registered as P.No.261 of 2006.
Again, the Civil Judge by his order dated 17th of November, 2005 decided the application for substitution impleadment filed by the appellant and rejected the same observing that the execution of the Will by the testator i.e. the original plaintiff on the basis of which substitution impleadment was sought for, seemed suspicious.
40 A/2004.
During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff had expired on 20th of June, 1989 and thereafter his widow, the respondent No.1 herein, filed an application for substitution as an heir and legal representative of the deceased in the pending suit.
It is this order of the High Court that was challenged by the appellant in this Court by way of a special leave petition which on grant of leave was heard in the presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Civil Judge, a revisional application was filed in the Court of the IVth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior in short, the Additional Judge and the Additional Judge, by his order dated 11th of November, 1991, set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge to the extent it held that the appellant was number the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff and thereafter remanded the case back to the Civil Judge for fresh decision of the application for substitution impleadment filed at the instance of the appellant.
The learned Civil Judge by an order dated 22nd of February, 1991 had allowed the application for substitution impleadment filed by the widow of the deceased plaintiff, namely, the respondent No.1 and rejected the application for substitution impleadment filed by the appellant on the ground that the Will of the deceased plaintiff did number seem to have been executed by him and, therefore, the appellant was number entitled to be substituted impleaded in the suit for eviction as he was number the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff.
One Shri Mohanlal Bansal since deceased as a plaintiff had instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against one Shri Bhogiram since deceased in respect of a shop room situated at Kampoo, Lashkar, Gwalior, M.P. in short the suit premises .
During the pendency of this appeal in this Court, more precisely on 27th of October, 2007, the original tenant, the respondent No.2 herein, had expired and his heirs and legal representatives were brought on record.
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated 18th of January, 2006 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Writ Petition No.261 of 2006 dismissing the writ petition and affirming the order dated 17th of November, 2005 passed by the 8th Civil Judge, Class I, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.
The appellant herein, the brother of the deceased plaintiff also filed an application for substitution impleadment as heir and legal representative of the deceased plaintiff claiming the suit premises on the allegation that the deceased plaintiff had executed a Will in his favour on 11th of June, 1989.
