HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20301/2023 1. Ghisanath S/o Nathu, Resident Of Kuchalwadakalan Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara At Present R/o Jaipur Chungi Naka Chouraha Devli, Tehsil Devli, District Tonk (Raj.) (Deceased) Legal Heirs 1/1. Panchunath Yogi, Son Of Shri Nathunath, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Chungi Ka Chauraha, Tonk Road, Devli, District Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Applicant-Petitioner Versus Pokharlal S/o Suraj Nath, R/o Chungi Ka Chauraha, Tonk Road, Devli, District Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dileep Singh Jadaun, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Kabra, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 10/01/2025 The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- applicant-plaintiff (for short ‘the applicant’) against the order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Camp Court Devli, District Tonk (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.7/2016(19@2016), whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the applicant for substituting him as a plaintiff in the plaint. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that plaintiff- Ghisanath filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 10.02.2016 and permanent injunction against the defendant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that during the (2 of 3) [CW-20301/2023] pendency of the suit, Ghisanath died on 05.05.2018. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application before the trial court for substituting him as a legal heir of deceased plaintiff Ghisanath because he is real brother of deceased Ghisanath. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the defendant filed reply to the aforesaid application to the effect that including the applicant, four other brothers of deceased-Ghisanath are Mulanath, Rampalnath, Surjanath and Pokharnath. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that deceased-Ghisanath had executed a Will in favour of the applicant but the trial court vide order dated 05.09.2023 wrongly substituted all the brothers of deceased-Ghisanath as plaintiffs in the plaint. So, the order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the trial court be set-aside. Learned counsel for the defendant has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the applicant had not taken any plea in his application regarding so-called Will. So, the trial court vide order dated 05.09.2023 rightly took all the brothers as legal heirs of deceased-Ghisanath on record and rightly substituted them as plaintiffs in the plaint. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the defendant. It is an admitted position that the applicant had not taken any plea regarding so-called Will executed by deceased-Ghisanath in his application before the trial court. The applicant first time (3 of 3) [CW-20301/2023] took the plea of the so-called Will. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has rightly substitued all the brothers of the deceased-Ghisanath as his legal heirs. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/110