Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: CNR NO.MHSCA30008892024 Presented on : 17.08.2024
Registered on : 07.10.2024
Decided on : 14.11.2025
Duration : 1Yr. 2Ms. 26 Days.
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI
[BANDRA BRANCH]
(Appellate Bench)
REVISION APPLICATION NO. 107 OF 2024
IN
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT NO. 34
IN
RAE SUIT NO. 169/277 OF 2007
Shri Narendra Rana (deleted since deceased)
1. Smt. Meena Narendra Rana
Widow of deceased Defendant No.2
Narendra Rana
Age :58 Occ: housewife
2. Mrs. Kunjal Narendra Rana
Daughter of deceased Defendant No.2
Age 40 Occ: Service
3. Krishna Narendra Rana
Daughter of deceased defendant No.2
Narendra Rana
Age :35 Occ: Service
All Adults, Mumbai Inhabitants,
residing at
B-3, Kshitij, Behind M. K. N. Bhatia School
off. Saibaba Nagar, Poisar, Kandivali (W),
Mumbai -400067
...Applicants/
(Original
Plaintiffs)
Versus
M/s. Renown Enterprises,
Ofthrough Proprter of Madhu P. Shah (HUF)
Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business,
Gala No. 6, Shree Chemical Compound,
Opp. Saint Pius College, Goregaon East
Mumbai-400 063
… Respondent/
(Original
Defendant)
-- 1 of 8 --
Revision No.107 of 2024 2 of 8 Judgment
Adv. R. R. Pandey for the appellant.
Adv. Dinesh R. Pandey for the respondent
Coram : Shri Ashish. A. Ayachit
Additional Chief Judge,
&
Shri Dipak R. Mali, Judge
Court Room No. 41,
Date :14.11.2025
JUDGMENT : - (Per Shri Dipak R. Mali, Judge)
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated
03.07.2024 passed below Exh. 34 in RAE Suit No. 169/277 of 2007 by
the learned Trial Court presiding over C.R. No.38, the
applicants/original plaintiffs have filed this revision application. By
order passed below Exh.34, the application of the plaintiffs for
permission to implead the Administrator General or an officer of the
court and such other person to represent the defendant for the purpose
of suit came to be rejected. The alternative prayer to determine other
heirs as per Advocate’ s letter dated 17.06.2022 also came to be
rejected. The parties will be referred as per their nomenclature in the
original suit.
The brief facts giving rise to present revision are summarized
as under :-
2. RAE Suit No. 169/277 of 2007 is filed by the plaintiffs
against the defendant for recovery of possession of suit premises on
the ground of unauthorised additions and alterations and change of
user. During pendency of suit, defendant’s Advocate vide letter
dated 17.06.2022 informed to the plaintiff that the proprietor of
defendant Mr. Madhu Prabhudas Shah expired on 02.04.2022. In
-- 2 of 8 --
Revision No.107 of 2024 3 of 8 Judgment
the said letter, names of legal heirs of Madhu Shah viz. Ranjan
Madhu Shah, Praseem Madhu Shah and Kartikaiya Madhu Shah
were mentioned. However, there is no proof that these three persons
are related to Mr. Madhu Shah and his legal heirs. The last address
of Mr. Madhu Shah and the said three persons are also different.
Even Advocate of the defendant has not prima facie proved that
Madhu P. Shah (HUF) is the proprietor of the defendant firm. For
the said reasons, the plaintiffs filed application Exh. 34 and prayed
that letter dated 17.06.2022 should not be accepted as a proof that
Ranjan Madhu Shah, Praseem Madhu Shah and Kartikaiya Madhu
Sha are the legal heirs of Madhu Shah until the said persons file an
application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure
and declare on oath that they are the only surviving legal heirs of
Mr. Madhu Shah. Hence, it is prayed that the plaintiffs may be
permitted to implead the Administrator General or an officer of the
Court or such other person as it thinks fit to represent the defendant
in the suit. Alternatively, the plaintiffs prayed to conduct an inquiry
as to whether Ranjan Madhu Shah, Praseem Madhu Shah and
Kartikaiya Madhu Shah are the legal heirs of deceased Madhu Shah.
3. The proposed defendant Mr. Praseem M. Shah by filing
reply vide Exh. 43 opposed the application. It is submitted that the
application is false and frivolous. The plaintiffs have not made any
case under Order XXII, Rule 5 read with Order XXII, Rule 4-A of the
Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs are only prolonging the
litigation. As per the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 4(5)(a) where
the plaintiffs were ignorant of the death of a defendant, and could
not for that reason, make an application for the substitution of the
-- 3 of 8 --
Revision No.107 of 2024 4 of 8 Judgment
legal representative of the defendant within specified period, the
Court shall have due regard to the fact of such ignorance. It is
further submitted that the application of the plaintiffs is not within
time and there is no prayer of condonation of delay and setting aside
abatement. Therefore, application is premature. Lastly, it is prayed
that the application may be rejected.
4. By filing rejoinder vide Exh. 45, the plaintiffs denied all the
contentions raised in the reply and prayed to allow the application.
5. After hearing learned Advocates for both the parties, the
learned trial court by order dated 03.07.2024 has rejected the
application Exh. 34 by observing that the plaintiffs should have
made efforts to find out whether the persons mentioned are really
legal representatives or not. There is nothing on record to satisfy the
Court that there are no legal representatives to represent the
defendant firm. Therefore, there is no question of appointment of
Administrator General to represent the estate of defendant firm.
6. The said order has been challenged by the plaintiffs on the
various grounds such as the learned trial court has not considered
the material facts and law. The plaintiffs submitted that the order
passed by the learned trial court is erroneous and needs to be set
aside.
7. Considering the revision application and submission of the
learned Advocates for both the parties, the following points arise for
our consideration and we record our findings thereon with the
reasons as under :-
-- 4 of 8 --
Revision No.107 of 2024 5 of 8 Judgment
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the Administrator General or an
Officer of Court needs to be appointed to
represent the defendant in the Suit ?
“ In the negative”
2. Whether there is need to direct an inquiry
under Order XXII , Rule 5 of Code of Civil
Procedure ?
In the negative”
3. Does the impugned order is erroneous? “ In the negative”
4. Does the interference of this court is
warranted in setting aside the impugned
order?
“ In the negative”
5. What order? “ Revision is dismissed
with costs. ”
R E A S O N S
8. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff has vehemently argued
that the proprietor of defendant firm who was acting as Karta of
HUF, is expired. Therefore, there is need to appoint Administrator
General or Officer of the Court because there is no any legal heir of
the deceased Madhu Shah. He argued that Advocate for the
defendant has informed the names of the legal heirs of the plaintiff,
but he has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that
those are legal heirs of deceased Madhu Shah. He further argued
that it is the duty of the defendant to produce on record sufficient
evidence to show that they are the legal heirs. He further argued that
the plaintiff is not under obligation to search the names of legal
representatives and therefore, there is a need to appoint
Administrator General or Officer of the court to represent the
defendant. He further argued that the learned Trial Court has
observed that the plaintiff did not take any pains to find out who are
-- 5 of 8 --
Revision No.107 of 2024 6 of 8 Judgment
the legal representatives of the defendant firm. He argued that such
observations of the learned Trial Court is erroneous. He further
argued that the order passed by the learned Trial Court needs to be
set aside.
9. The learned Advocate for legal heirs of the deceased Madhu
Shah has argued that he has sent a letter to the plaintiff informing
the names of the legal heirs. He argued that after informing the
names of legal heirs, the plaintiff should have to file an application
for bringing the legal heirs on record, but the plaintiff chose to file
an application to appoint Administrator General or Officer of the
Court to represent the defendant. This step taken by the plaintiff is
wrong and unacceptable.
As to Point Nos.1 and 2 :-
10. The present suit has been filed for recovery of
possession of the suit premises on the various grounds under Section
16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
11. Admittedly, Mr. Madhu Shah who was acting as a Karta of HUF
and the proprietor of the defendant firm is expired on 02.04.2022.
The record shows that the learned Advocate for the defendant firm,
sent a letter to the learned Advocate for the plaintiff and informed
this fact. The names of the legal heirs are also mentioned in the said
letter dated 17.06.2022. If Mr. Madhu Shah was acting as Karta of
HUF and proprietor of defendant firm, then as per provisions of
Order XXII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff
should have to file an application to bring on record, the legal
representatives of the defendant. It was expedient for the plaintiff
-- 6 of 8 --
Revision No.107 of 2024 7 of 8 Judgment
the names of legal heirs of the deceased defendant. Therefore, it was
expected from the plaintiff to file an application for bringing the
legal heirs of the deceased defendant on record and not application
under provisions of Order XXII, Rule 4-A of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Merely, bringing legal heirs on record will not make the
legal heirs entitled to the tenancy rights. That question will be
decided at the time of final disposal of the suit. But as the legal heirs
of the deceased defendant Madhu Shah who was acting as Karta of
HUF and proprietor of defendant firm are known to the plaintiff as
per the letter, it cannot be said that there are no legal heirs of the
deceased Madhu Shah.
12. As per provisions of Rule 4-A of Order XXII of Code of
Civil Procedure, Administrator General or the Officer of the Court
can be appointed by the Court if there is no any legal representative
of deceased. However, as observed from the record, the names of
legal heirs have been informed to the plaintiff, therefore, the
provisions of Order XXII, Rule 4-A of Code of Civil Procedure cannot
be invoked. If the plaintiffs do not wish to admit them as legal heirs
then, it is the duty of the plaintiffs to find out who are the legal
representative or members of HUF against whom he is intending to
proceed with the suit. The learned Trial Court has correctly observed
this fact and recorded the findings that the Administrator General or
the Officer of the court cannot be appointed to represent the estate
of the defendant firm. The names of legal heirs shown in letter dated
17.06.2022 shows that they are not totally strangers. In this
situation, we find that there is also no need to direct an inquiry
about the legal heirs as per Order XXII , Rule 5 of the Code of Civil
-- 7 of 8 --
Revision No.107 of 2024 8 of 8 Judgment
Procedure. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Administrator
General need not be appointed and there is no need to direct an
inquiry under Order XXII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Hence, we answer point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative.
As to Point Nos. 3 to 5 :-
13. Considering out finding to point Nos. 1 & 2, we are of
the opinion that there is no need to appoint Administrator General
or an Officer of Court to represent the defendant in the Suit. The
learned Trial Court has rightly passed order dated 29.11.2023 and
rejected the application. Thus, the order passed by the learned Trial
Court is according to law and no interference is required in the said
order. Therefore, we answer point No. 3 and 4 in the negative and
in answer to point No.5, we proceed to pass following order.
O R D E R
1. Revision is dismissed with costs.
2. The order passed by learned Trial Court below
application Exh. 34 in RAE Suit No. 169/277 of
2007 dated 03.07.2024 is confirmed.
3. Inform to the learned Trial Court accordingly.
I Agree,
(Ashish A. Ayachit) (Dipak R. Mali)
Addl. Chief Judge Judge,
C.R. No. 41 C.R. No. 41
14.11.2025 14.11.2025
Judgment dictated on : 14.11.2025
Judgment transcribed on : 15.11.2025
Judgment checked & signed on :17.11.2025
/home/steno41/Desktop/CR-41/NOVEMBER-25/JT/REVISION -107-2024.odt Shubhada Shanbhag
-- 8 of 8 --