Civil Revision No. 6830 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6830 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 08.11.2011 Nirmala Devi .... Petitioner Versus Kamla Rani and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.26657-CII of 2011 The petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-4. CM stands disposed of. CR No.6830 of 2011 This is a revision petition brought by Nirmala Devi, one of the plaintiffs under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 03.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sangrur, vide which the application filed by the plaintiffs, for bringing on record the legal representatives of defendant no.1 has been dismissed. Civil Revision No. 6830 of 2011 --2-- The plaintiffs had brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of plaintiff no.1 over residential house as also restraining them from alienating in any manner the said property. In the said suit, Ved Parkash, defendant no.1 died and an application was brought for impleading his legal representatives Kamla Rani and others. Learned trial court has dismissed the application vide the impugned order for the only reason that cause of action against defendant no.1 does not survive. It is concluded for the said reason that his legal representatives are not required to be impleaded. It is further observed by learned trial court that if there would be apprehension on the part of the plaintiffs from the legal heirs of defendant no.1, the same would give rise to a new cause of action. Therefore, the application has been dismissed. I have heard Shri Rajbir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the observation of learned trial court that cause of action has not survived is baseless. According to him, the application had been brought by the plaintiffs for impleading legal representatives of defendant no.1 and when the plaintiffs were seeking their impleadment, then it can be said that they had a cause to be decided against the legal representatives of defendant no.1 after his death. Civil Revision No. 6830 of 2011 --3-- Although, it is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of plaintiff no.1 over the residential house, it is also for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating in any manner the said property. The cause of action to seek this relief certainly survives against the legal representatives of defendant no.1. Being heirs of Ved Parkash, defendant no.1 may attempt to alienate the suit property .The observation of learned trial court that no cause of action survives on the death of Ved Parkash is certainly baseless. In these circumstances, the impugned order is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. The revision petition is, consequently, allowed setting aside the impugned order, directing learned trial court to proceed further with the suit in accordance with law. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 08.11.2011 JUDGE dinesh