R.S.A.No.1079 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1079 of 2008 Date of Decision : 23.7.2009 Ram Singh ...Appellant Versus Paramjit Singh ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. M.S.Bedi, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Gauri Bedi, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff that he is the owner of the possession of shamlat land proportionate to the land purchased by the plaintiff from Kartar Kaur vide registered sale deed dated 20.12.1955 was dismissed in appeal. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has purchased land alongwith proportionate share of Kartar Kaur in the shamlat land vide aforesaid sale deed. The sale deed was challenged by Kartar Kaur in a suit filed in the year 1962. The said suit was dismissed and attained finality with the dismissal of second appeal by this Court in 19.2.1972. Thereafter, the son of Kartar Kaur sought to raise dispute regarding the share of Kartar kaur in the shamlat land, which led to filing of present R.S.A.No.1079 of 2008 2 suit. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has moved an application for correction of his father's name, mentioned in the plaint. The suit was decreed, but the learned first Appellate Court has accepted the appeal only on the ground that the identity of plaintiff with the purchaser in the sale deed is not established. With the said finding, the appeal was accepted and the suit dismissed. Still aggrieved, the plaintiff is in second appeal. The short argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that since an application for correction of the parentage of the plaintiff was filed before the trial Court, therefore, the mistake in name of father could not be made basis by the learned first Appellate Court to dismiss the suit. It is contended that notice of the application was issued and in fact reply was also filed, but still no order was passed on the said application. The said factual aspect could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent herein. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the judgment and decree of the learned first Appellate Court requires to be set aside and the matter be readjudicated upon by the first Appellate Court, keeping in view the application filed by the appellant before the trial Court with a further direction to the learned first Appellate Court to decide the said application before proceeding to decide the appeal on merits. In view of the fact that the application for correction of father's name of the plaintiff was not decided, the judgment and decree passed by R.S.A.No.1079 of 2008 3 the learned first Appellate Court is set aside. It is, however, made clear that the first Appellate Court shall pass an appropriate order on the application filed by the appellant for correction of his father's name. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned first Appellate Court on 7.9.2009 for decision of the appeal on merits in accordance with law. 23.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE