C.R. No. 5836 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5836 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.10.2009 Resham Singh son of Jagat Singh, resident of Ranipur Rajputtan, Tehsil Phagwara, through his attorney Harbhajan Singh son of Rattan Singh, resident of village Raipur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. Avtar Singh son of Sohan Singh; 2. Sewa Singh son of Sohan Singh; both residents of village Ranipur Rajputtan, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 08.06.09, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara, vide which, it dismissed the application, moved by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, for sending the interrogatories, in the name of Muharrar Mal, Office of the Sadar Kanugo, Kapurthala. 2. During the pendency of the suit, an application, was moved, C.R. No. 5836 of 2009 2 by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, that the interrogatories, be sent to Muharrar Mal, Office of the Sadar Kanugo, Kapurthala, for preparation of excerpt, to establish that, the property, in dispute, was the ancestral coparcenary property and Jagat Singh father of the plaintiff, had no right, to execute the Will dated 25.11.71, in respect thereof. That application, was dismissed, vide the order impugned. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner. 4. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 5. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the preparation of excerpt, was essential, for the purpose of determining the coparcenary nature of the property. He further submitted that, no doubt, a suit was filed by the respondents, earlier, against the revision- petitioner, in which, it was held, that the property involved therein, was not the coparcenary property. He further submitted that the property, in dispute, was not involved, in that suit. He further submitted that the Court below, was, thus, wrong in dismissing the application. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. In para No. 4 of the order, the C.R. No. 5836 of 2009 3 Court below, in clear-cut terms, held that, there was a previous litigation, between the parties, in which, a finding was returned, that the property, in question, was not the ancestral coparcenary property. Copy of the judgement of the previous suit, has been placed, on record, by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, wherein, it was held, that Jagat Singh, inherited the property, from his father, and his brother, to the extent of 1/ 2 share. The Court, in the earlier suit, held that, the property, in the hands of Jagat Singh, could not be said to be ancestral, as the property, which was inherited by him, from his brother, being non-ancestral, intermingled with the ancestral coparcenary property, and, thus, the entire property, became non-coparcenary property. No doubt, the khasra number, in the present suit, was not the subject matter of the earlier suit. However, the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, was not able to explain, that the property, in dispute, was not inherited by Jagat Singh, from his brother. In the earlier suit, the decision was recorded by the trial Court that whatever property was inherited by Jagat Singh, was from his father and brother respectively. The mere fact that, no relief, was claimed, in the earlier suit, in respect of the property, in dispute, did not mean that, it was coparcenary property. It is evident from page 7 of the judgement dated 21.07.95, rendered by the first Appellate Court, in the appeal, which was filed against the judgement and decree of the trial Court, in the earlier lis, that an excerpt PW2/A was prepared by Karnail Singh, Moharrir Kanungo, who appeared as (PW2). In para 7 of its judgement, the first Appellate C.R. No. 5836 of 2009 4 Court, in clear-cut terms held that it was proved from the excerpt and the statement of Karnail Singh, Moharrir Kanungo, that the estate of Hazara Singh, who died during the life time of his father, devolved upon Jagat Singh and his brother Sohan Singh, vide mutation No. 1051 dated 12.06.53, whereas, mutation No. 455 dated 29.09.96 B.K. of the inheritance of Banta Singh father of Jagat Singh, was sanctioned in his (Jagat Singh's) favour and in favour of Sohan Singh his brother. The excerpt PW2/A, in the earlier suit was prepared in respect of the inheritance of entire property of Hazara Singh and Banta Singh. That file containing the excerpt could be summoned by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, to prove, whether the property, in dispute, was the ancestral coparcenary property or not. No ground was, thus, made out for getting a fresh excerpt prepared, by sending the interrogatories. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same, is dismissed. 12.10.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE