CR No.8073 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.8073 of 2010 Date of Decision : 10.12.2010 Resham Singh …Petitioner/Plaintiff Versus Sewa Singh & Others ….Respondents/Defendants CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL Present : Mr. P. S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * * L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No.31596-C-II of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.31597-C-II of 2010 This is application for bringing on record legal representatives of defendant No.1 Avtar Singh, since deceased. It is alleged that Avtar Singh has left behind two sons and a daughter mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application as his only natural legal heirs. The application is accompanied by affidavit. Accordingly this application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and persons mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application are ordered to be impleaded as legal representatives of defendant No.1 Avtar Singh (since deceased) for the purpose of this revision petition. CR No.8073 of 2010 Plaintiff-Resham Singh aggrieved by order dated 11.10.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara, thereby dismissing plaintiff’s application Annexure P-1 filed under order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (in short, CPC) for -1- CR No.8073 of 2010 impleading (i) Mohinder Singh (ii) Balbir Singh and (iii) Baldev Singh sons of Sohan Singh as party to the suit, has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing instant revision petition to challenge the said order of the trial court. The petitioner-plaintiff filed suit against Avtar Singh (since deceased and represented by respondents No.2 to 4 as legal representatives) and Sewa Singh both sons of Sohan Singh. The suit filed on 01.03.2002 was initially for relief of permanent injunction only. By amendment of plaint, which was allowed vide order dated 14.09.2006, relief of declaration was also added. Again further amendment of plaint was allowed vide order dated 21.02.2009 to add the alternative relief of possession of the suit land. Plaintiff moved application Annexure P-1 dated 24.09.2010 alleging that the defendants have set up Will dated 25.11.1971 allegedly executed by Jagat Singh in favour of his son Sohan Singh. The Will also stipulated that if Sohan Singh died, then all his five sons Avtar Singh, Sewa Singh (both defendants), Mohinder Singh, Balbir Singh and Baldev Singh (now sought to be impleaded) would inherit the suit property under the Will. Accordingly, Mohinder Singh, Balbir Singh and Baldev Singh were sought to be impleaded as party to the suit by moving application Annexure P-1. Defendants resisted the aforesaid application by filing reply Annexure P-2. Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 11.10.2010, dismissed application Annexure P-1 moved by the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that court has ample power under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as well as under Rule 3 of the -2- CR No.8073 of 2010 High Court Rules and Orders Volume 1 Chapter 1 Part C, which have been reproduced in the grounds of revision petition. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same cannot be accepted. There is no quarrel with the abstract legal proposition that the courts have power to implead any necessary party. However, such power has to be exercised judiciously. In the instant case, it has to be noticed that the suit was instituted on 01.03.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that original written statement was filed by the defendants on 18.03.2009. In the said written statement, Will dated 25.11.1971 has been pleaded and it has been mentioned that on the death of Sohan Singh, all his five sons were to inherit the suit property. Issues in the case were framed on 26.03.2002. However application Annexure P-1 is dated 24.09.2010. It is thus apparent that this application for impleading Mohinder Singh, Balbir Singh and Baldev Singh was moved 8 ½ years after the defendants had set up the Will, giving rise to necessity of impleading these persons also as defendants. The plaintiff, however, did not wake up for 8 ½ years. Not only this, in the meantime, the plaintiff sought amendment of plaint twice, which was also allowed. Even at that stage, the plaintiff did not seek impleadment of these persons as party to the suit. Trial of the suit has already commenced. At this highly belated stage, application Annexure P-1 for impleading the aforesaid persons cannot be allowed and has been rightly declined by the trial court. It may also be added that Mohinder Singh, who is also sought to be added as party, has already died. It was also mentioned specifically in preliminary objection No.2 of written statement dated 18.03.2009 filed to the amended plaint that Mohinder Sing had already died leaving behind his son, daughter and wife as his legal heirs. However, in spite thereof, instead -3- CR No.8073 of 2010 of seeking impleadment of legal heirs of Mohinder Singh as party to the suit, the petitioner sought impleadment of Mohinder Singh himself, who had already died on 10.07.2001 i.e. even before filing of the suit, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court warranting interference in exercise of power of superintendence by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE December 10, 2010 ‘raj’ -4-