HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CR No. 40/2025 Sukhdev Raj & Anr. …..Petitioners Through: Mr. P.L. Sharma, Advocate Vs Romesh Kumar & Anr. .….Respondents Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER (03.11.2025) 01. Cause title of the petition is revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 whereas in the prayer part, the petitioners have referred to issuance of writ of certiorari. The error of mention is inadvertent and, as such, the petition is to be taken as revision petition. 02. The petitioners are the defendants in a civil suit preferred by Baldev Raj-the 8predecessor-in-interest9 of the respondents No. 1 and 2 herein. 03. The civil suit preferred by the plaintiff-Baldev Raj was for permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to land Serial No. 05 2 CR No. 40/2025 property. The two petitioners are real brothers of late Baldev Raj. 04. Plaintiff-Baldev Raj died during the pendency of the civil suit on 08.02.2020. 05. An application dated 22.03.2021 came to be filed by two respondents herein claiming themselves to be the legal heirs/representatives of the deceased-plaintiff and, therefore, sought their substitution and impleadment in the suit so as to carry forward the litigation on account of right to sue surviving. 06. The time and gap between the date of death i.e. 08.02.2020 and application dated 22.03.2021 is almost one year during which the suit remained on the docket of the civil court of Sub-Judge, Jammu. The application came to be allowed in terms of an order dated 24.09.2025. 07. The reason which has been weighed with the Court in allowing the application is the intervening COVID-19 period and, therefore, this Court cannot find any fault in the reasoning of the court below in allowing the application and impleading the legal representatives of the deceased- plaintiff-Baldev Raj as plaintiff to pursue the suit. 08. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that there were other legal representatives who ought to 3 CR No. 40/2025 have joined the respondents on account of being necessary party which aspect has been overlooked by the court below. 09. It is not necessary that upon death of a sole litigant in a civil litigation, all the legal representatives need to come forward and seek impleadment as long as any one of them come and seek impleadment so as to represent the estate of the deceased litigant. 10. In case, the petitioners would reckon that non-impleadment of the other legal representatives is fatal to the civil suit then surely the petitioners have the other legal remedy available at their disposal to exploit the aspect and get the engagement of the Court to address the point of objection. 11. In view of this, this Court finds no good ground to grant indulgence in the matter and accordingly, the revision petition is not entertained. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 03.11.2025 SUNIL