IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2967 of 2009 Date of decision : 22.5.2009 Vinod Kumar … Petitioner Versus Harvinder Pal and others …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg. Present: Mr.Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This revision petition has arisen out of the order dated 1.4.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Barnala whereby, application filed by the present petitioner for seeking permission to file written statement, was dismissed. As per averments made in this petition, respondents No.1 and 2 who claimed to be owner of the property in dispute, filed a suit for permanent injunction on 3.9.2003 against defendant-late Shri Hari Ram (father of the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 6) for restraining him from dispossessing them. The respondents also sought rendition of account w.e.f. 28.10.1991 till date. Upon notice, defendant-Hari Ram appeared and filed written statement on 8.10.2003 and resisted the suit on the ground that the same was not maintainable. It was also pleaded that the suit was filed against the defendant in his personal capacity whereas, defendant No.1 had no concern with regard to the property in dispute as the same was in possession of one Shri Durga Mata Charitable Trust, who has not been made a party in the suit. On merit, it was averred that the property in question was in possession of the said Trust and the plaintiffs-respondents have not approached the CR No.2967 of 2009` court with clean hands. Issues were framed in the suit on 25.2.2004. The plaintiffs-respondents led evidence in support of their case which was completed on 20.4.2006. Thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time to enable the defendant-Hari Ram to produce evidence on his behalf. However during the pendency of the suit, on 8.3.2007, death certificate of the defendant-Hari Ram was produced in the Court by the counsel who was appearing on behalf of the aforesaid defendant-Hari Ram and it was stated that defendant had died on 14.1.2007. On the application moved by the plaintiffs-respondents, LRs of defendant-Hari Ram were ordered to be brought on record vide order dated 8.10.2007. Thereafter, petitioner along with respondents No.3 to 6 moved an application (Annexure P-7) seeking permission to file written statement to the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents. In this application, it was stated by the applicant-(petitioner & respondents No.3 to 6) that they were impleaded unnecessarily as no cause of action accrued against them. As there was no dispute with regard to the estate of Hari Ram-defendant and as such, they be allowed to file written statement by themselves. The aforesaid application was contested by the plaintiffs-respondents by filing reply (Annexure P-8), stating therein that the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 6 are LRs of the defendant-Hari Ram and they are responsible for his estate. It was further stated in this reply that the present application was nothing but an abuse of process of law to delay the trial of the case. The trial Court vide impugned order (Annexure P-1), dismissed the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it is his specific case that there is no cause of action against the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 6 as the 2 CR No.2967 of 2009` present case does not deal with the estate of defendant-Hari Ram. It was also pointed out that in the written statement filed by Hari Ram-defendant, it was pleaded that he was not concerned with the property of the temple in his personal capacity and it was the trust who was the owner of the property and he was the chairman of the trust only. It is also the case of the petitioner that petitioner and respondents No.3 to 6 are not liable to rendition the accounts and therefore, they were entitled to file a fresh written statement on their behalf and the impugned order (Annexure P-1) is liable to be set aside and they were entitled to file a fresh written statement. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. I find no force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 6 were brought on record only to pursue the case which was filed against their father i.e. Hari Ram. After the impleadment of the petitioners, no new relief has been sought by the plaintiffs-respondents, and in fact, the petitioners have clearly stated that no cause of action has arisen against them as they are not connected with the property in dispute. Once this specific stand is taken by the petitioners, there was no necessity for them to put on record their defence/defendants by way of filing written on their behalf. They are to pursue the case being LRs of defendant Hari Ram who had already filed written statement. Moreover, in the present case, the pleadings were completed way back in the year 2004 and the issues were also framed and the plaintiffs-respondents have already completed their evidence. 3 CR No.2967 of 2009` In view of the aforesaid facts, I find no merit in this revision petition. From the records, it is crystal clear that the petitioners are making every efforts to delay the trial. Even after the death of defendant-Hari Ram, no application was moved by them for impleading them as LRs of aforesaid defendant-Hari Ram and application for bringing them on record was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents. Even that application was contested by the counsel who was appearing on behalf of Hari Ram by filing reply taking specific stand that LRs of Hari Ram have no concern with the suit and they have no interest involved in the present suit. This Court is at a loss to understand in what circumstances, the aforesaid reply was filed by the learned counsel whose power of attorney had come to an end on the death of defendant-Hari Ram. For the reasons recorded, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.10,000/- [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] Judge 22.05.2009 sd 4