IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2878 of 2008 Date of Decision : September 24, 2009 Sukhdev Singh ....Petitioner Versus Ravel Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. K.S.Boparai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Verma, Advocate for respondent No.3. T.P.S. MANN, J. By a common order, the Court intends to dispose of the present Civil Revision bearing No. 2878 of 2008 and connected Civil Revision bearing No. 2886 of 2008, as both of them have arisen out of identical orders passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, on 1.2.2008 in two different suits, whereby the applications filed by Sukhdev Singh, sole plaintiff in the two different but identical suits, under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code for impleading one Surjit Kaur as defendant No.4 and for consequent amendment of the respective plaints, were dismissed. However, for facility of reference, the facts are taken from Civil Revision No. 2878 of 2008. C.R. No. 2878 of 2008 -2- Civil Suit bearing No. 1316 of 2001 was filed by Sukhdev Singh plaintiff-petitioner against Nachhattar Kaur, Ajmail Kaur and Bant Singh, wherein he sought a decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell, orally executed by deceased Gurdev Singh son of Nand Singh, and agreeing to sell to the plaintiff the suit land for a consideration of Rs.1,73,000/-. He also prayed for directions to the defendants to get the sale deed (executed by deceased-Gurdev Singh) executed afresh in his favour as deceased seller Gurdev Singh died intestate, unmarried and childless and Nachhattar Kaur and Ajmail Kaur- defendants were his only legal heirs, being his sisters. The plaintiff also sought permanent injunction for restraining and refraining the defendants from illegally and unauthorisedly delivering the possession of the suit land to anyone else to the detriment of his rights and further from changing the nature of the property or alienating it to anyone else by sale, gift, lease, exchange, transfer, etc. themselves or through their agents, servants, attorneys, relations, etc. In the said suit, Bant Singh was impleaded as defendant No.3, as he claimed that deceased Gurdev Singh had executed a Will dated 17.3.1998 in his favour. Upon filing of written statement by Bant Singh-defendant No.3, wherein he stated that Gurdev Singh had executed a registered Will dated 17.3.1998 in his favour to the extent of half share and also in favour of his wife Surjit Kaur to the extent of remaining half share, the plaintiff- petitioner moved an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI C.R. No. 2878 of 2008 -3- Rule 17 of the Code for impleading Surjit Kaur wife of Bant Singh as defendant No.4 and consequent amendment of plaint. The application was resisted by Bant Singh-defendant by filing a reply and praying for dismissal of the same. Vide order dated 1.2.2008, the learned trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that Bant Singh-defendant No.3 had already brought to the notice of the plaintiff that Surjit Kaur was a necessary party as she was owner to the extent of half share of the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 17.3.1998 but no action had been taken by the plaintiff thereafter. Application Under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code having been filed at a belated stage, there was no justification to allow the same. Moreover, the trial of the case had already commenced and was at the stage of evidence of the plaintiff and he also failed to convince the Court as to why he could not take the plea sought to be taken through the proposed amendment earlier despite due diligence. It is the case of defendant No.3 himself that deceased seller Gurdev Singh had executed a registered Will dated 17.3.1998 in his favour and in favour of his wife Surjit Kaur, bequeathing his estate in their favour in equal shares. This fact was stated by him in his written statement, which he had filed in January 2003. Though the plaintiff ought to have acted soon after the filing of the written statement by defendant No.3/respondent by filing an application for impleading Surjit Kaur as party defendant, besides amending the plaint, yet the fact remains that no significant progress has been achieved by the learned trial Court so far regarding the recording of C.R. No. 2878 of 2008 -4- the evidence of the plaintiff. Only a part of the plaintiff-petitioner's evidence has been recorded so far and the case is said to be fixed for September 30, 2009 for recording of other evidence of the plaintiff. In view of the fact that it is the case of Bant Singh-defendant himself that deceased Gurdev Singh had executed a Will in his favour and in favour of his wife Surjit Kaur and, therefore, Surjit Kaur being a necessary party for proper adjudication of the suit and that the trial of the suit filed by the plaintiff has not made any significant progress so far, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be best served if the plaintiff-petitioner is allowed to implead Surjit Kaur wife of Bant Singh as party-defendant No.4 in the suit and consequently amend his plaint so as to add the line “defendant No.4 is wife of defendant No.3” at the end of para 1 and to substitute the words “defendant No.3 is” with “defendants No.3 and 4 are” in the last line of para 6 of the plaint. Resultantly, both the revisions are accepted, the impugned orders are set aside and the applications filed by the plaintiff-petitioner in both the suits under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are allowed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 24, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1