CIVIL REVISION NO.8226 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL REVISION NO.8226 OF 2010 DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 17, 2010 Kulwinder Kaur and another .... Petitioners Versus Charan Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Kiran Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.32039-C-II of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Main Case This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by two of the six legal representatives of defendant Nachhattar Singh (appellant in the lower appellate court), assailing order dated 27.10.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran, thereby dismissing application moved by legal representatives of defendant-appellant for filing additional written statement. Suit filed by respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs against Nachhattar Singh was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008. Defendant preferred first appeal against judgment and decree of the trial court. During pendency of the appeal, defendant died and his legal representatives (petitioners and proforma respondent Nos.3 to 6) were impleaded. They moved application for permitting them to file additional written statement. The said application has been dismissed by the lower CIVIL REVISION NO.8226 OF 2010 -2- appellate court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumtibai & Ors. Versus Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W/o Parasmal Chordia (D) & Ors., 2007(10) Supreme Court cases 0082, contended that legal representatives on being impleaded as such are entitled to file additional written statement to take up the pleas available to them. The contention cannot be accepted. In the case of Sumtibai (supra), suit was filed against Kapoor Chand defendant who died during the pendency of the suit. His legal representatives including his wife and sons etc. were impleaded. They moved application to file additional written statement. In that case, registered sale deed depicted that sale was in favour of Kapoor Chand and his sons and not in favour of Kapoor Chand only. Thus Kapoor Chand's sons, who were also among his legal representatives impleaded in the suit on his death, were co-owners in the suit property in their own right and not as legal representatives of the defendant Kapoor Chand. In view thereof, it was observed that they had a right to file written statement to take up the said plea. Obviously judgment in the case of Sumtibai (supra), in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, has no bearing on the instant case. It may also be added that in the case of Sumtibai (supra), legal representatives of defendant were impleaded in the trial court itself and they wanted to file additional written statement in the trial court. In the instant case, however, the suit has already been decreed by the trial court. Legal representatives of the defendant want to file additional written statement in first appeal, which has been preferred by original defendant who died during the pendency of the appeal. At CIVIL REVISION NO.8226 OF 2010 -3- this stage of appeal, question of filing additional written statement does not arise. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the lower appellate court. Application moved by the legal representatives of defendant for filing additional written statement, is completely misconceived and has been rightly dismissed by the lower appellate court. The instant revision petition is thus completely meritless and is accordingly, dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE December 17, 2010 'raj'