C.R.No.1116 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1116 of 2010 Date of decision: 31.03.2010 Vijay Kumar .. Petitioner Versus Ramesh Kumar and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Anil Ghangas, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Anurag Jain, Advocate for the respondents . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the order whereby the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC filed by the respondent claiming himself to be an assignee of late Hoshiar Singh has been allowed while similar application on behalf of the petitioners who are the natural heirs of aforesaid Hoshiar Singh has been declined. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that the petitioners had disputed the signatures of Hoshiar Singh on assignment deed and Special Power of Attorney and therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned Trial Court to frame an issue, allow parties to lead evidence and only thereafter, give a finding on who was the Legal Representative of late Hoshiar Singh. In my opinion, the purpose behind Order 22 Rule 3 CPC is to provide a summary remedy, so that the estate of a deceased litigant is represented. It nowhere determines whether the person claiming is or is not the actual representative and that is why any such order of impleadment is clarified C.R.No.1116 of 2010 ::2:: 'subject to all just exceptions'. Consequently, the finding recorded under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC would not come in the way of the petitioners in case they want to take appropriate proceedings to challenge the assignment deed/Power of Attorney. With these observations, this revision petition is disposed of. March 31, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE