C.R.No.6406 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.6406 of 2009 Date of decision: 6.5.2010 Garish Bawa .....Petitioner vs. Smt.Saroj Bhalla and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Adarsh Jain,Advocate, for respondents No.1,3 and 4. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) Vide impugned order dated 24.9.2009, Smt.Saroj Bhalla (respondent No.1) alone, was impleaded as legal representative of Bawa Sarup Singh (defendant No.1 in the suit, since deceased) to contest the suit and the question of the determination of the rights of parties inter se on the basis of inheritance/Will was kept open and the parties to the suit were given liberty to get that issue decided at the appropriate stage by making a prayer for framing any such issue. As per the averments made in this petition respondent No.2 filed a suit for declaration, inter alia, contending that he was entitled to receive the share of compensation to be received by the petitioner, respondent No.1 and Bawa Sarup Singh since deceased ( i.e. defendants No. 1 to 3) from (respondents No.5 and 6)(i.e.defendants No.4 and 5) on account of acquisition of land situated in villages Goindwal and Khakh Tehsil and district Tarn Taran,alleging therein that the land was joint Hindu family C.R.No.6406 of 2009 2 property/ancestral property and respondent No.2 (plaintiff) being a member of the coparcenary was entitled to receive the same. During pendency of the aforesaid suit defendant No.1 i.e. Bawa Sarup Singh died on 25.5.2008. Defendant No.2 Smt. Saroj Bhalla wife of Bawa Sarup Singh (now respondent No.1) filed an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that a will dated 22.3.2007 executed in her favour by deceased Bawa Sarup Singh. It was further stated in the aforesaid application that the two daughters of Bawa Sarup Singh i.e. respondents No.3 and 4 in the present revision petition had no objection to the substitution of the name of their mother alone in place of deceased defendant No.1. Thus, in the aforesaid application, it was claimed by Smt.Saroj Bhalla that she alone had the right to contest the suit. Petitioner namely Garish Bawa (defendant No.3 in the suit) contested the aforesaid application on the ground that Bawa Sarup Singh was survived by other legal heirs i.e. petitioner and respondents No.1,3 and 4 and the right to contest the suit on behalf of Bawa Sarup Singh vested in all the aforesaid legal heirs. Execution of the Will in favour of Smt.Sroj Bhalla was denied. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 24.9.2009 allowed the application of Smt.Saroj Bhalla and brought her on record of the suit to defend the suit on behalf of Bawa Sarup Singh (defendant No.1) allegedly ignoring the claim of the petitioner and others. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the property in dispute was ancestral coparcenary property, and therefore all the coparceners were entitled to C.R.No.6406 of 2009 3 equal share of the property left by defendant No.1 and, therefore, the petitioner had a right to contest the suit as legal representative of Bawa Sarup Singh along with respondents No.1,3 and 4 and therefore, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of this revision petition. There is no dispute that Bawa Sarup Singh (defendant No.1) survived by the legal heirs,i.e. the petitioner and respondents No.1,3 and 4. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohinder Kaur v. Piara Singh, AIR 1981 P&H,130, has held that determination of the point as to who is the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff or defendant under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC is only for the purposes of bringing legal representatives on record for conducting those legal proceedings only and does not operate as res judicata and the inter se dispute between the legal representatives has to be independently tried and decided in separate proceedings. Thus, in the aforesaid view of the matter and the fact that inter se rights of the parties to the inheritance of Bawa Sarup Singh (defendant No.1) has been kept open, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) 6.5.2010 Judge rk