IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2101 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision 16.07.2009 Ujjagar Singh ......Petitioner VERSUS Balbir Kaur and others ......Respondents Civil Revision No.2102 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision 16.07.2009 Ujjagar Singh ......Petitioner VERSUS Balbir Kaur and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: None. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This order shall dispose of aforesaid two revision petitions Nos.2101 & 2102 of 2005, preferred by the petitioner, against the judgment 12.02.2005, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala. The suit for recovery on the basis of promissory note and receipt dated 19.11.2001 was filed on 08.10.2003, which was registered on 13.09.2003. The defendants-respondents has taken up the stand that Major Singh executant of the promissory note has died and they are not the necessary parties whereas the petitioner has contended that the Sukhwinder Singh, Harwinder Singh sons of Harjit Singh, Ravnit Singh and Rupinder Singh sons of Baljit Singh, being the L.Rs. of Major Singh on the basis of Civil Revision No.2101 of 2005 (O&M) -2- Will dated 23.03.2001 having inherited the property of Major Singh, are the necessary parties, therefore, they are required to be impleaded as defendants. Suit involves heavy recovery of Rs.6,13,280/- and it is settled law that the liabilities of the deceased could be recovered from his estate. Since the estate of the deceased is in the hands of Sukhwinder Singh, Harwinder Singh, Ravnit Singh and Rupinder Singh, therefore, certainly they being the necessary parties could be impleaded as defendants by way of amendment in the plaint. The trial Court has declined the application merely on the ground that since the plaintiff-petitioner did not demand the payment, therefore, no cause of action arises against them. I do not agree with this contention. In case, where a party defendant dies during the pendency of the suit then the cause of action either abates or it travels to the legal representatives, who have stepped into his shoes. The trial Court appears to have settled the proposition on wrong notions. Thus, deserves to be reversed. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and the trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 16.07.2009 mamta-II