IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1941 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 26, 2009 Krishan Baldev … Petitioner Versus Bheesham Dev and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Chander Shekhar, Advocate, for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.6. S.D. Anand, J. It is apparent from the record that the parties to the cause are legal heirs of one Sukhdev. In order to resolve their inter-se bickering qua the Joint Hindu Family property, a sole arbitrator was appointed. He announced the award dated 29.05.1990. The plaintiffs therein filed a plea before the learned Trial Court on 01.08.1990 for making the award aforementioned a rule of the Court. Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 therein filed an application under the Arbitration Act for setting aside of the award. C.R. No. 1941 of 2008 Vide a common judgment dated 25.02.2002, the learned Trial Court set aside the impugned award and dismissed the plea for making it a rule of the Court. It was thereafter that the petitioner before this Court filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that the order dated 25.02.2002 aforementioned was illegal, invalid, void, abinitio and nullity as it had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The plaintiff – petitioner further applied for the restraint of defendants – respondents from dispossessing him from that property and from alienating it. The plea, in the context, was that as the plaintiff – petitioner is of unsound mind, no award could have been passed against him (without his being represented by a guardian). The learned Trial Court dismissed the ad interim stay plea. The learned First Appellate Court affirmed that view by observing as under:- “7. The only question for determination in this suit is whether the plaintiff during the pendency of the aforesaid arbitration case was of unsound mind or not. If he was of unsound mind, then obviously he is not bound by any judgment, but there is no such evidence on the file. Rather the circumstances on the file suggest that the plaintiff was prosecuting/defending the case vigorously. The proceedings in the case started in the year 1990 and culminated in the year 2002. The allegations of the wife of the plaintiff that she came to know about the judgment only on 22.7.04 2 C.R. No. 1941 of 2008 when the defendants came to take possession of house No. 85, is false because she had obtained copy of said judgment on 26.9.2002 under her signatures. The plaintiff had filed a civil suit No. 653 of 1996 on 19.4.1993 titled Krishan Baldev Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and others. Said suit was decreed in his favour on 10.8.1999. He prosecuted said civil suit in person. If he was of unsound mind, then how could he prosecute said civil suit in person. The arbitration case was also contested by the plaintiff in person for a very long period and he had submitted written arguments. He had filed an affidavit consisting of 21 pages in said case by taking all possible legal pleas in his favour which belies his claim that he at that time was of unsound mind. The medical record of the plaintiff placed on the file would show that he was suffering from a disease known as schizophrenia. It is not such a disease where a man can be said to be of unsound mind. Moreover, the entire record is for the period from 27.07.04 to 4.3.2006. No medical record for the period prior to announcement of the impugned judgment has been placed on the file to show that at that time also, he was suffering from any such type of disease.” The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has not been able to persuade me to fault the impugned 3 C.R. No. 1941 of 2008 finding by the learned First Appellate Court on any valid score. The learned counsel has not been able to explain why the plea of unsoundness of mind could not have been taken up at the trial. In the light of the foregoing discussions, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. March 26, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 4