CM No.6346 -C-II of 2010 in CIVIL REVISION NO.7367 OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.6346 -C-II of 2010 in CIVIL REVISION NO.7367 OF 2009 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 23, 2010 Sinder Kaur & Ors. .... Petitioners VERSUS Jaspal Singh & Ors. .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for applicant-respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. M. K. Singla, Advocate for non-applicant/petitioners. **** L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Petitioners who are Wife, Daughter and Son of respondent No.3 filed suit against respondent No.3 only impleading him as sole defendant. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein moved application for impleading them as party to the suit. Trial Court vide order Annexure P- 1 allowed the said application. Said order was challenged by the plaintiffs by filing instant revision petition. The revision petition was dismissed in limine vide order dated 14.12.2009 with the stipulation that respondents No.1 and 2 have to adopt the written statement already filed by respondent No.3 (original defendant) being transferees pendente lite from respondent No.3, although respondents No.1 and 2 were permitted to take new plea arising out of the transaction of purchase of suit property by them. CM No.6346 -C-II of 2010 in CIVIL REVISION NO.7367 OF 2009 -2- Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed the instant application for modification of order dated 14.12.2009 vide which the revision petition was dismissed in limine without notice to the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the applicants-respondents No.1 and 2 contended that suit has been filed by the petitioners against respondent No.3 in collusion with respondent No.3-defendant as would be apparent from the circumstances of the case and therefore, respondents No.1 and 2 should be permitted to take the said plea by mentioning relevant facts and circumstances. It was also pointed out that order dated 14.12.2009 dismissing the revision petition with stipulation mentioned hereinbefore was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to applicant- respondent Nos.1 and 2. I have carefully considered aforesaid contention and find merit therein. Applicant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 were not heard when order dated 14.12.2009 was passed in the revision petition. They have right to raise the plea that suit has been filed by petitioners in collusion with respondent No.3-defendant. Of course, they have to substantiate the said plea by leading evidence. Respondent No.3 is said to have been proceeded ex parte in the trial court. Applicants-respondent Nos.1 and 2 have to defend their interest. It is alleged that the suit was filed after respondent No.3 had already entered into agreement to sell the suit land with respondents No.1 and 2, whereas the sale deed was executed during pendency of the suit. CM No.6346 -C-II of 2010 in CIVIL REVISION NO.7367 OF 2009 -3- For the reasons aforesaid, the instant application is allowed and respondents No.1 and 2 shall be at liberty to also take the plea in their written statement regarding alleged collusion of petitioners with respondent No.3 along with relevant facts and circumstances to substantiate the said plea. I have not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the plea of alleged collusion which may be raised by respondents No.1 and 2. (J. N. MITTAL) JUDGE November 23, 2010 'raj'