C.R. No.7996 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7996 of 2010 Date of Decision: 08.12.2010 Ram Kishan and another .....Petitioners Versus Ramdhari and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate for the petitioners. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Defendants have instituted the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order dated 01.11.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar thereby dismissing defendants' application for dismissal of the suit. Suit was filed by Bal Roop father of petitioners against the petitioners as defendants. Bal Roop died during the pendency of the suit. His other two sons (respondents herein) moved application for being impleaded as legal representatives of the original plaintiff-Bal Roop on the basis of Will allegedly executed by the deceased plaintiff in favour of the respondents herein. Defendants made statement in the Court that they have no objection if all natural heirs of the deceased plaintiff are impleaded as his legal representatives. Accordingly, vide order dated 19.10.2006, the trial Court impleaded the respondents herein as legal representatives of the original plaintiff. The said order has attained finality and was not challenged by any party. C.R. No.7996 of 2010 -2- Bal Roop filed the suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to handover vacant possession of the suit property alleging that said plaintiff is owner thereof. The plaintiff also claimed recovery of licence fee as well as mesne profits for use and occupation of the suit property. Defendants alleged that they are owners of the suit property. Defendants moved application for dismissal of the suit alleging that respondents were impleaded as legal representatives of the original plaintiff for prosecution of the suit, but the legal representatives cannot proceed with the suit as the question of inheritance of the deceased plaintiff has not been decided by any Court of law. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even if original plaintiff since deceased is proved to be owner of the suit property, the defendants being his sons and natural heirs would also inherit the suit property and become cosharers and, therefore, the suit cannot be prosecuted against them. The contention appears to be very forceful on first blush, but in fact the contention is devoid of merit. If original plaintiff since deceased is proved to be owner of the suit property, then the defendants are liable to pay licence fee and mesne profits for the period preceding the death of the original plaintiff and the said amount has to be shared by all heirs of the original plaintiff including the respondents herein. Secondly, if respondents herein are also able to prove that suit property had been bequeathed to them by original plaintiff, in that event, the C.R. No.7996 of 2010 -3- respondents would also be entitled to mandatory injunction directing the defendant-petitioners to hand-over vacant possession of the suit property to the respondents. Consequently, without adjudication of the dispute between the parties, the suit cannot be dismissed in summary manner merely on the basis of application moved by the defendants. The lis requires proper trial and adjudication. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. The impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It has been rightly observed by the trial Court that contention raised by counsel for the defendants can be looked into at the time of final arguments. Obviously, the suit cannot be dismissed without trial and adjudication. The revision is accordingly dismissed in limine. 08.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE