Civil Revision No. 3669 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3669 of 2008 Date of decision: 2.3.2009 Smt. Krishna and another ...Petitioners Versus Munni Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the respondent. S.D.ANAND, J. One Rangi Ram was owner of the land in suit which he transferred in favour of his sons Bhim Singh, Jeet Singh and Budh Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the beneficiaries”), vide judgment and decree dated 28.8.1991. The validity of that decree was challenged by Munni Lal, another son of Rangi Ram (hereafter after referred to as “the plaintiff”). The averment, made in the course of plaint, is that the land in suit was not self acquired of Rangi Ram and it was ancestral in his hands qua plaintiff who constituted a joint Hindu family with him. The pure and simple plea raised thereby was that the Rangi Ram could not have conceded the decree of that suit on the basis of a family settlement to exclusion of the plaintiff who had acquired a right in that property from his conception itself. In that case, Rangi Ram (during his life time) was represented by Shri K.K.Mittal, Advocate. Rangi Ram aforementioned died during the pendency of the suit on 2.4.2004 and the present petitioners came to be impleaded as legal representatives. They were also represented by Shri Civil Revision No. 3669 of 2008 -2- **** K.K.Mittal, Advocate. However, neither Rangi Ram aforementioned nor the petitioners (who were impleaded as legal representatives of Rangi Ram) filed any written statement. It was thereafter only that the present petitioners engaged another counsel (Shri A.K.Batra) on 12.5.2008 and filed a plea for being allowed to file a written statement. That request was contested by the defendants to the cause and it was declined by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 28.5.2008. In support of the plea that Legal Representatives of a deceased party ought to be allowed to file additional written statement to take up the pleas available to them, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Sumtibai and others Vs. Paraqs Finance Co. Mankanwar W/o Parasmal Chordia (D) & others 2007 (4) Civil Court Cases 593 (SC). The plea is resisted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents who, besides pleading inapplicability of the judgment aforementioned to the facts of the present case, argues that Shri K.K.Mittal, Advocate represented the present petitioners and other defendants/respondents. He filed written statement on 15.10.1998 on behalf of two defendants (other than the present petitioners) only. Insofar as Rangi Ram himself is concerned, exparte proceedings were ordered against him on 7.9.2000 as Sh. K.K.Mittal, Advocate pleaded want of instructions from him (Rangi Ram). Even otherwise, it is argued that Rangi Ram died on 2.4.2002 and present petitioners came to be impleaded as Legal representatives thereafter but that the plea under challenge came to be filed only on 12.5.2008. It is also pointed out that this Court had also in the course of the order dated 30.11.2007, directed the disposal of the case Civil Revision No. 3669 of 2008 -3- **** under reference within one year from the date of receipt of order dated 30.11.2007. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff stands closed and a larger part of the evidence has also been adduced by the defendants. I have heard Mr. R.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.N.Lohan, learned counsel for the respondent and carefully gone through the file. The ruling in Sumtibai's case (supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, one Kapoor Chand had entered into the impugned agreement to sell the property in dispute to the plaintiff therein, There was an averment, in the course of the plaint, that the property in dispute was self acquired property. Kapoor Chand aforementioned died during the pendency of the suit and his wife and sons etc. were allowed to be brought on record as his legal representatives. It is under those circumstances, the legal representatives were allowed to file additional written statement to take up the pleas available to them. In the present case, however, Rangi Ram had already been proceeded exparte on 7.9.2000. Even though the petitioners before this Court were brought on record as legal representatives of Rangi Ram in the year 2000 itself, the plea for filing written statement came to be filed only in the year 2008. In light of the fore-going discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. March 02, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge