IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1085 of 2011 Date of decision: 2.6.2011 Phool Kaur … Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Ms. Anita Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG Haryana Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for respondents 2 to 4. ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for declaration, titled Phool Kaur v. State of Haryana. She is aggrieved with the order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the Civil Judge(Sr.Division), Gurgaon, by dint of which the application under Order 1 rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, filed by Sushila and her two sons, namely, Jawahar and Samrita, for their impleadment in the suit, has been allowed. The facts are that Phool Kaur is the grand-mother of Yoginder @ Pinki. She lodged FIR No. 153 dated 19.5.2001 under Section 364 IPC against Jawahar Manta and others including the applicants of application under Order 1 rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, who are wife and children of said Yoginder @ Pinki. An untraced report is stated to have been filed by the police about the said FIR as far back as in the year 2002. The present suit is for declaring Yoginder @ Pinki to be dead having not been heard since 2nd November, 2000 (about 9 years). In the application under Order 1 rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, it has been claimed by the wife and children that Yoginder @ Pinki is still alive and the people have C.R. No. 1085 of 2011 -2- seen him. Plaintiff wants to declare Yoginder @ Pinki to be dead just to grab his land. The said application has been allowed. Hence, this revision by the plaintiff. Heard. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the grand-mother of Yoginder @ Pinki whereas Sushila is the wife while Jawahar and Samrita are the children from their wed-lock. The FIR lodged by the plaintiff against them and others is also stated to have been filed being untraced. The applicants who have been impleaded, claim that Yoginder @ Pinki is alive and is often seen by the people and as such, their impleadment is necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The revision petition stands dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months. June 02, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE