Civil Revision No.2609 of 2004 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2609 of 2004 Date of decision: January 15, 2008. Partap Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Sachin Sharma & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: S/Shri Arun Jain & Raj Mohan Singh, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.1. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 31.3.2004 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani whereby the plaintiff - respondent No.1 (Sachin Sharma) has been further brought on record as defendant, being alleged legal representative of deceased defendants No.1 and 2. The facts may be noticed briefly. The dispute pertains to the succession and inheritance to the estate of one Keshav Dev Sharma. The said Keshav Dev Sharma was firstly married to Triveni Devi (defendant No.2) but no issue was born out of the wedlock. It is alleged that Keshav Dev Sharma thereafter re-married in the Civil Revision No.2609 of 2004 -: 2 :- year 1943 with Smt. Satya Wati (defendant No.1). However, no child was born out of the said wedlock also. The petitioner and his co-defendants contend that Keshav Dev Sharma had adopted his sister's son, namely, Sri Kant on 27.12.1954 by way of a registered adoption deed. In support of this plea, they are relying upon a book published in the year 1955. The said Sri Kant also died on 23.7.1984 and is stated to be survived by his wife Smt. Shyama Sharma and two daughters – Renu and Sonu. Respondent No.1 – plaintiff (Sachin Sharma), on the other hand, claims himself to be son of niece of Triveni Devi, who was the first wife of Keshav Dev Sharma and claims to have been adopted by Keshav Dev Sharma. In fact, in his capacity as an adopted son of Keshav Dev Sharma, he has filed the present suit for declaration etc. On a bare reading of the plaint, it is apparent that the plaintiff – respondent No.1 has made certain allegations against his adopted mother - Smt. Satya Wati, as according to him, she allegedly procured a Will dated 3.4.1980 after exerting “undue influence” on Keshav Dev Sharma. Similarly, allegations of conniving with other defendants, so as to usurp properties of Keshav Dev Sharma, have been made against Smt. Triveni Devi also. During the pendency of the civil suit, both Smt. Satya Wati and Smt. Triveni Devi have died. The question arose that who should represent them as their legal representative? While, the plaintiff – respondent No.1 claims himself to be the sole legal representative, the petitioner, who is defendant No.27 in the suit, moved an application that in fact the widow of Sri Kant, namely, Smt. Shyama Sharma and their two daughters Renu and Sonu are the only legal representatives of defendants No.1 and 2. The learned trial court, however, vide its impugned order dated 21.3.2004 has brought on record the plaintiff – respondent No.1 (Sachin Sharma) as legal heir of defendants No.1 and 2 (Satya Wati and Triveni Devi) on the ground that for the limited purpose of continuation of the suit proceedings, he, being the alleged adopted son of Keshav Dev Sharma, appears to have a locus-standi to represent their estate. As far as the contention raised by the petitioner (defendant No.27) regarding the other legal representatives of deceased Keshav Dev Sharma and his wives, the learned trial court has Civil Revision No.2609 of 2004 -: 3 :- observed that since they have not come forward, the petitioner cannot seek their impleadment. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other relevant documents. There can be no exception but to hold that respondent No.1 – plaintiff (Sachin Sharma) has adverse interest to that of Smt. Satya Wati and Smt. Triveni Devi in the civil suit. In fact, he can succeed in the civil suit only if his allegations against Smt. Stya Devi and Smt. Triveni Devi sustain. In these circumstances, the learned civil court ought not to have brought the plaintiff on record as legal representative of defendants No.1 and 2. The impugned order to that extent, therefore, cannot sustain, more so when no prejudice shall be caused to respondent No.1 – plaintiff, who is always at liberty to prove his allegations against defendants No.1 and 2 and/or their legal representatives. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the only recourse left with the learned trial court was to issue notice to Smt. Shyama Sharma, widow of Sri Kant, and their two daughters – Renu and Sonu and to implead them as legal representatives of defendants No.1 and 2. This, however, shall not preclude respondent No.1 – plaintiff to dispute the status of Smt. Shyama Sharma or her two daughters as legal heirs of deceased Keshav Dev Sharma or of defendants No.1 and 2. In case Smt. Shyama Sharma or her two daughters do not come forward despite the court notice, in that event, the court can appoint a court guardian to represent the estate of respondents No.1 and 2 as provided in Order 22 Rule 4-A CPC. Consequently and for the reasons afore-stated, the impugned order dated 31.3.2004 is set aside with the directions given herein-above. January 15, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge