Civil Revision No.5314 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5314 of 2011 Date of Decision:02.09.2011 Iqbal Singh ......Petitioner Versus Manjit Kochhar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Ms.Tanu Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in this revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Iqbal Singh son of Sampuran Singh-petitioner- plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit(Annexure P-1) against his father Sampuran Singh(since deceased)-defendant No.1 and other respondent-defendants (for short “the defendants”)for a decree of declaration to the effect that he is owner of undivided 1/3rd share of Joint Hindu Family Coparnecary property in dispute and is entitled to its separate possession after partition, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining defendant No.1 from alienating it, in any manner. 2. During the pendency of the suit, Karan Singh Pandher son of Maninder Singh Pandher, respondent No.5 moved an application(Annexure P-2) under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, for impleading him as a party and to include his name in the array of defendants in the main suit, inter alia, pleading that Sampuran Singh Pandher, who died on 08.05.2006, during his lifetime, executed a valid registered Will dated 07.07.2000(first Will) with his sound and disposing state of mind Civil Revision No.5314 of 2011 2 bequeathing his entire property to him, situated at village Lohatbaddi. According to respondent No.5, since he is a beneficiary in pursuance of the terms & conditions of the registered Will, as such, he is necessary party to be impleaded in the array of defendants, so that, the suit can be decided judiciously and finally. 3. The petitioner-plaintiff refuted the prayer of respondent No.5, filed the reply(Annexure P-3), inter alia, taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the application, cause of action and locus standi of respondent No.5. He reiterated his right to inherit 1/3rd share in the Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary Property in dispute. Additionally, it was claimed by the plaintiff that Sampuran Singh Pandher, during his lifetime, with his free consent and sound disposing state of mind, executed a last and final Will dated 01.09.2005(second Will) in their favour (plaintiff, defendant No.2 and others), in lieu of services rendered by them. The factum of first Will is denied and it was claimed that respondent No.5 is not entitled to inherit any property in dispute. It will not be out of place to mention here that the plaintiff has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the application(Annexure P-2) and prayed for its dismissal. 4. The trial Court accepted the application(Annexure P-2) of respondent No.5 and impleaded him in the array of the defendants, by virtue of (though not a very happily worded)impugned order dated 02.06.2011. 5. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred the present revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with her valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect. 7. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that the impugned order is sketchy and is the result of non-application of mind, may be true, but that ipso facto is not sufficient and would not come to the rescue of the petitioner- Civil Revision No.5314 of 2011 3 plaintiff in this relevant connection. 8. Above being the position on record, now, the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this case, as to whether the presence of respondent No.5 is essential to effectively decide the suit between the parties or not? 9. Having regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative. As is clear that, Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC postulates that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any person, who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. 10. As is evident from the record that the petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit against his father Sampuran Singh and other defendants, claiming 1/3rd share of the property in dispute. Again, it is not a matter of dispute that Sampuran Singh died on 08.05.2006 during the pendency of the suit. Respondent No.5 has based his claim on the basis of first registered Will dated 07.07.2000 and moved an application(Annexure P-2) for impleading him as a party, invoking the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Additionally, in reply(Annexure P-3), the petitioner- plaintiff has set-up a plea of another second Will dated 01.09.2005 executed by Sampuran Singh in their favour. 11. Meaning thereby, inter alia, (i) whether the property in dispute is a Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary Property and the plaintiff had 1/3rd share in it and (ii) whether the first Will dated 07.07.2000 executed in favour of respondent No.5, or the second Will dated 01.09.2005 executed in favour of the plaintiff and other defendants, by Sampuran Singh, are valid and genuine, would be the moot points Civil Revision No.5314 of 2011 4 to be decided by the trial Court in the main suit. In that eventuality, to me, the presence of Karan Singh Pandher-respondent No.5 is essential to decide the real controversy between the parties, to avoid the multiplicity of the litigation and to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. In this manner, the trial Court has rightly accepted the application of respondent No.5, by means of (though not a very happily worded) impugned order dated 02.06.2011. Such order, containing the valid conclusion, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the conclusion of the trial Court deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the suit, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. September 02, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5314 of 2011 5 C.M.No.21271-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5314 of 2011 Present: Ms.Tanu Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. September 02, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE