C.R.No.2178 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2178 of 2011 Date of Decision: 29.3.2011 Moorti Rani and another ....Petitioners Versus Ishwar Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J(Oral) Defendants-mortgagees/petitioners have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 11.2.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) Gidderbaha, vide which respondent no.1-Ishwar Singh has been impleaded as plaintiff. Briefly noticed the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that one Smt.Ajmer Kaur was owner of double storied shop measuring 25' x 16' with a house at the back of the shop. She mortgaged the said property with petitioners for a sum of Rs.40,000/- vide mortgage deed dated 7.5.1987. During her life she executed a registered Will in favour of Sohan Singh/respondent no.2. On the basis of said registered Will the suit property was mutated in favour of C.R.No.2178 of 2011 #2# respondent no.2-Sohan Singh. The natural heirs of Ajmer Kaur challenged the aforesaid registered Will in the Court of law but failed. After the death of said Ajmer Kaur, respondent no.2- Sohan Singh filed a suit for possession by way of redemption against the petitioners herein on the ground that he being the owner of the property wanted to redeem the suit property by paying mortgage amount. The petitioners took the objection that they were not mortgagee of respondent no.2- Sohan Singh and as such he has no right to redeem the property. They also took the objection that they were not party to the earlier litigation filed by the natural heirs of Ajmer Kaur and as such the they were not bound by the said decree. The suit of the respondent no.2-Sohan Singh was decreed by the learned trial Court and preliminary decree was passed vide judgement and decree dated 22.7.1996 in his favour and he was held entitled to take possession by way of redemption of the suit property on payment of mortgage amount of Rs.40,000/-. The petitioners challenged the said preliminary decree which was allowed by the learned Addl. Distt.Judge, Faridkot, vide judgement and decree dated 18.7.1998. However, in RSA No.2553/1998 filed by respondent no.2-Sohan Singh, in which respondent no.1-Ishwar Singh had also moved an application for being impleaded as a party, the judgement and decree dated 18.7.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge was set aside and the preliminary decree passed in favour of respondent no.2-Sohan Singh was upheld. It is further borne out from the petition that respondent C.R.No.2178 of 2011 #3# no.2-Sohan Singh executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one Inder Singh, authorising him to sell/ mortgage moveable and immovable property of respondent no.2-Sohan Singh. During the pendency of the appeal filed by petitioners, Inder Singh, GPA of respondent no.2-Sohan Singh allegedly executed two sale deeds dated 3.2.1997 and 4.2.1997 regarding the shop as well as the house located behind it in favour of Ishwar Singh-respondent no.1. It is alleged in the petition that General Power of Attorney and Special Power of Attorney dated 28.2.2000 executed by respondent no.2-Sohan Singh in favour of Inder Singh were cancelled/revoked by respondent no.2 vide registered deeds dated 13.6.2008 and 21.4.2003 respectively. It is further alleged that Inder Singh being the Power of Attorney Holder of respondent no.2-Sohan Singh filed application under Order 34 CPC for passing the final decree. Thereafter respondent no.2-Sohan Singh filed an application dated 24.7.2008 for removal of General Power of Attorney namely Inder Singh as his Attorney has already been cancelled/revoked, as noticed above. Besides that respondent no.1- Ishwar Singh filed an application under Section 146 read with Section 151 CPC to substitute him as a plaintiff in place of respondent no.2- Sohan Singh on the ground that since respondent no.2 had executed the sale deeds in his favour he has become the owner of the suit property and thus ultimately aggrieved person. The said application filed by respondent no.1 was contested by respondent no.2-Sohan Singh as well as by the petitioners. The stand taken by the petitioners C.R.No.2178 of 2011 #4# was that even if it was presumed that sale deeds have been executed during the pendency of the litigation still respondent no.1-Ishwar Singh could not be impleaded as plaintiff in view of provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned trial court vide impugned order dated 11.2.2011, after hearing the parties dismissed the application filed by respondent no.2 for the removal of General Power of Attorney i.e. Inder Singh but allowed the application filed by respondent no.1- Ishwar Singh and substituted him as plaintiff in place of respondent no.2. Hence the present revision petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitiones that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as both the respondents have connived with each other to put loss to the petitioners and the respondent no.1 has no right to be impleaded as plaintiff in the suit. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. It is not disputed that sale deed was executed in favour of respondent no.1- Ishwar Singh on 3.2.1997 by Inder Singh being General Power of Attorney of respondent no.2-Sohan Singh. The said General Power of Attorney was cancelled by respondent no.2-Sohan Singh on a subsequent date i.e. 13.6.2008. Thus the cancellation/revocation of General Power of Attorney by respondent no.2 on a subsequent date does not extinguish the right which came to be vested in respondent no.1-Ishwar Singh by way of sale deed dated 3.2.1997. Further, the C.R.No.2178 of 2011 #5# learned trial Court has rightly held that even after coming to know about the sale deed executed by Inder Singh in favour of respondent no.1-Ishwar Singh, till date respondent no.2-Sohan Singh has taken no steps to challenge the genuineness of the sale deed dated 3.2.1997. For the reasons stated above, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 11.2.2011 warranting any interference in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed 29.3.2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) joshi JUDGE