RSA No.4640 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4640 of 2009 Date of decision: July 28, 2011. Bhano ... Appellant(s) v. Balbir Singh & Ors. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri M.K. Garg, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Shri Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate, for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Karnail Singh had six sons, namely, Gurnam Singh, Santokh Singh, Gurdial Singh, Bikkar Singh, Balbir Singh and Amrik Singh and one daughter, namely, Bhano, appellant-plaintiff No.2. Santokh Singh, Gurdial Singh and Bikkar Singh had died. Gurnam Singh and Bhano filed a suit against the other two brothers, namely, Balbir Singh and Amrik Singh, and Narinder Singh son of Balbir Singh claiming that a declaration be issued that they are owners in possession of the suit property, detail and description of which was given in the head-note of the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, Gurnam Singh plaintiff moved an application that his name be struck off from the array of plaintiffs. But no application was filed by Bhano plaintiff No.2 to the effect that the name of Gurnam Singh be transposed as a defendant to the suit. Besides this, the RSA No.4640 of 2009 -: 2 :- names of other three pre-deceased brothers were not impleaded as parties to the suit and even there was no mention as to when they had died, they were not survived by any legal heirs. The trial court had dismissed the suit for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and also on the ground that consequential relief cannot be granted because in the revenue record, plaintiff No.2 – Bhano has not been reflected in possession of the suit land. Counsel for the respondent-defendants submits that there was a valid Will in favour of Narinder Singh – defendant No.3 and even though the scribe was examined but for non-production of the attesting witness, the Will could not be proved. Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that he be permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one for an appropriate relief as it will also give an opportunity to the defendant- respondent to prove the Will also. Shri Satnam Singh Gill, appearing for the respondents has no objection to the prayer made by counsel for the appellant. Thus, in view of the statement made by Counsel for the parties, the appellant-plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the suit and liberty is also granted to her to file a fresh suit seeking appropriate relief against the defendants. Defendants will also get an opportunity to prove the Will in consonance with the principles of law. With the observations made above, the present appeal is disposed of. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] July 28, 2011. Judge kadyan