IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1372 of 2006(O&M) Date of decision : September 24, 2010 Jatender Pal Singh and another ....Appellants versus Dalip Singh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. JS Toor, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate for the respondent Plaintiff-respondent also in person. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 2008.C of 2009 This is application for impleading legal representatives of Agya Kaur appellant no. 1 since deceased. It is alleged that appellant no. 1 has left behind a son and three daughters as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the application as her legal heirs. It is, however, alleged that Jaspal Singh son of appellant no. 1 is already appellant no. 2 and his interest is common with the interest of other legal heirs of appellant no. 1. It has accordingly been prayed that only appellant no. 2 may be allowed to represent estate of appellant no. 1 in the instant second appeal. Ordinarily the application would not have been allowed or decided without issuing notice to other natural legal heirs of appellant no. 1. However, in the instant case, the suit itself is being withdrawn Regular Second Appeal No. 1372 of 2006(O&M) -2- by plaintiff-respondent and therefore, the instant appeal is to be allowed. In view thereof, the instant application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Jaspal Singh appellant no. 2 is ordered to be brought on record as legal representative of appellant no. 1 Agya Kaur since deceased to represent her estate in the instant second appeal on behalf of all the legal heirs of appellant no. 1. Necessary correction in the memo of parties be made by the office. CM No. 9512.C of 2010 and RSA No. 1372 of 2006 Plaintiff-respondent has filed CM No. 9512.C of 2010 for withdrawing the suit by allowing the instant second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has no objection to the application. Accordingly, CM No. 9512.C of 2010 is allowed and consequently, RSA No. 1372 of 2006 is allowed and judgments and decrees of both the courts below are set aside and suit filed by plaintiff- respondent is dismissed as withdrawn. Plaintiff-respondent shall be at liberty to withdraw the remaining sale consideration deposited by him in the trial court. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 24, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'