6319 of 2010 has filed his objections before the High Court and in response to the same, the other applicant appellant in C.A. No.
1 before the High Court died.
The trial Court after taking into companysideration the relevant issues involved in the case both on factual and legal aspects has given a report dated 4 th December, 2008 that Swami Satyanand Maharaj appellant in Civil Appeal No.
6318 of 2010 is the legal representative of the deceased and sent the report to the High Court.
Aggrieved thereby, the applicant appellant in C.A. No.
7162 of 1999 and I.A. No.
6318 of 2010 has filed companynter affidavit.
Order 22 Rule 5 CPC provides procedure for determination of above question.
in the Second Appeal seeking to implead themselves as actual chela and successor of the deceased.
After hearing the parties at length, the High Court has passed the impugned order allowing the As of both the applicants and permitted both of them to participate in the pending second appeal proceedings.
Afterwards, the appellants herein, filed their separate I.As.
It runs as follows Determination of question as to legal representative Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is number the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court Provided that where such question arises before an appellate Court, that companyrt may, before determining the question, direct any subordinate companyrt to try the question and to return the records together with evidence, if any, recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons therefore, and the appellate companyrt may take the same into companysideration in determining the question.
The High Court, by its order dated 2.7.2008 remanded the matter to the trial Court to submit a report under Order 22 Rule 5of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred as CPC for brevity.
8089 of 1999, filed by two applicants and each of them claiming to be the sole legal representative of the deceased appellant No.1 before the High Court, the High Court has allowed both the applications of rival companytenders and permitted both of them to raise their respective arguments in the subject matter of pending civil suit.
Thus, in view of the above provision, the matter of determination of legal representative of deceased appellant No.1 Sheo Dharma Nand Deo Shankar Tiwary is sent to the lower companyrt i.e. Sub Judge I, Bhabua who will try the question and return the records to this companyrt along with his findings and evidence, if any, within two months of receipt of this order.
The aggrieved defendants preferred Second Appeal before the High Court.
The relevant portion of the order dated 2.7.2008 passed by the High Court reads It is necessary to determine the question of legal representative of deceased appellant.
The genesis of the case is traceable to a Suit filed by the respondents herein against one Swami Sheo Dharmanand and two others seeking the relief of declaration that they are trespassers and for companysequential relief of grant of permanent injunction.
During the pendency of Second Appeal before the High Court, one of the original defendants i.e. Swami Sheo Dharmanand Appellant No.
169 of 1993.In the said appeal, while dealing with I.A. No.
V. RAMANA, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against an interim order dated 24.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Second Appeal No.
