Civil Revision No.4857 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.4857 of 2011 Date of Decision: 29.8.2011 Harvinder Kaur and Another ... Petitioners Versus Joginder Singh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Amardeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 12.5.2011 (Annexure P15), passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby an application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order XXXIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed and he was permitted to continue with the suit as an indigent person. The trial Court has relied upon the statement of Joginder Singh, PW.1, wherein he stated that he is not possessed of any immovable property except clothes which consisted of two old suits, a turban, a wooden rod, a parna and torn shoes, total value whereof is not more than ` 200. He has also placed on record a certificate issued in his favour to this effect by the Gram Panchayat and a Blue Card issued by the Government. Civil Revision No.4857 of 2011 2 It is a case where an old man has been duped by his relations. In paragraph No.3 of the plaint, it has been stated that respondent/plaintiff had sold his 2½ acres of land and gave the sale consideration of ` 6,00,000 to defendant No.2/petitioner No.2-Balbir Singh, for depositing the same in his bank account, who instead of doing so, deposited the same in the joint account of Balbir Singh, petitioner No.2 and Balbir Kaur. It is further pleaded that the sale deed was executed in favour of Harvinder Kaur, daughter of Balbir Singh, who is defendant No.2 to the suit. It will be pertinent to mention here that Balbir Singh, petitioner/defendant No.2 is the son of plaintiff/respondent’s wife’s brother. An FIR was also lodged against petitioner/defendant No.2. The trial Court has also placed reliance upon the testimony of AW.2 Sadhu Singh, who stated in categoric terms that Joginder Singh, plaintiff, is not possessed of sufficient means. Furthermore, a Blue Card has been issued by the Government to Joginder Singh, plaintiff/respondent, to the effect that he is living below the poverty line. In these circumstances, it can be safely held that the impugned order dated 12.5.2011 (Annexure P15) is well reasoned. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 29, 2011 “DK”