Civil Revision No.7867 of 2011(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7867 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:-20.12.2011 Hardish Kaur & Anr. ......Petitioners. Versus Jaspal Singh & Ors. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the Petitioners. *** JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL) Hardish Kaur and Baljit Kaur daughters of Shameer Singh/defendant (since deceased) have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 18.11.2011(P-4) whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected their application for setting aside the ex- parte order dated 18.03.2011 passed against the petitioners. Facts in brief are that contesting respondent no.1 Jaspal Singh/Plaintiff on 06.03.2007 filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 17.02.2005 executed between the plaintiff and defendant Shameer Singh. Defendant Shameer Singh died on 09.03.2010 and plaintiff moved an application dated 13.03.2010(P-1) seeking to implead his widow, his two sons, five daughters and the widow and children of his pre-deceased son Sajjan Singh totaling number 11 as Lrs of deceased Civil Revision No.7867 of 2011(O&M) #2# Shameer Singh. It appears that for non presence of the two daughters, petitioners Hardish Kaur and Baljit Kaur even after munadi, they were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 18.03.2011. The petitioners claimed to be residing at their matrimonial home and came to know about the ex-parte order when they came to the Tehsil and Court Complex Baba Bakala, for sanctioning of mutation on the basis of inheritance of their father resulting into making in application dated nil (P- 2) for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 18.03.2011. Reply to the same was filed (P-3). Thereafter the application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.11.2011. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that munadi qua the petitioners was done at their alleged address of their parental house and thus it would not constitute proper service because it cannot be disputed that they are all residing in their respective matrimonial homes. It is thus contended that the impugned order dated 18.11.2011 deserves to be set aside. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not persuaded to accept the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners. It is apparent that the suit for specific performance was filed on 06.03.2007 by the plaintiff Jaspal Singh on the basis of an agreement to sell executed by defendant Shameer Singh. On the death of defendant Shameer Singh on 09.03.2010 the plaintiffs moved an application for impleading all the Lrs. Sh. B.S. Baath, Advocate caused appearance on behalf of almost all the Lrs of defendant Shameer Singh namely his widow, his two sons and some other Lrs. One of the sons Khushnaseeb Singh wholeheartedly and very hotly defended the case on behalf of defendant/Shameer Singh(since Civil Revision No.7867 of 2011(O&M) #3# deceased). The evidence of the defendant was closed by order of the Court and Khushnaseeb Singh filed a civil revision before this Court wherein he impleaded the other Lrs including the present petitioners as proforma respondents by showing their address as that of their parental home. This Court granted one more opportunity to the defendants to complete their evidence. After availing the same it is apparent that the present application has been moved. In the facts of the case in my opinion learned Trial Court has rightly declined the said application moved by the petitioners as the case of their defendant father Shameer Singh was duly represented and it is not the case of the petitioners that there is any fraud or collusion on part of other Lrs to the prejudice of the rights of the petitioners or the case of defendant father has not been properly represented. In the facts of the case it is apparent that the petitioners have adopted this method only to delay the conclusion of the trial. There exists no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting inference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE December 20, 2011 Vinay