Civil Revision. No.4701of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision. No.4701of 2001 Date of decision:5th August, 2009 Kuldip Kaur ......Petitioner Versus Mohinder Singh and another ......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The petitioner challenges a judgment and decree dated 22.03.2001, passed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, accepting the appeal filed by the respondents, setting aside the order dated 26.09.1994, passed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Phagwara and as a consequence, dismissing the petitioner's application filed under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The petitioner filed an application under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, claiming that as the other co- sharers proposed to alienate the property, she had a preferential right to pray that the property be sold to her in the first instance. Civil Revision. No.4701of 2001 2 The trial court, entertained the application and passed an order, allowing the application, subject to deposit of Rs. 36,000/- by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the respondents filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, accepted the appeal, by holding that an independent application is not maintainable under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act and therefore, the applicant-petitioner should file a suit. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal filed by the respondents was not maintainable as the trial court did not draw up a decree. It is argued that in the absence of any provision for an appeal, the Additional District Judge, Jallandhar, had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. It is prayed that, in view of the above facts, the revision petition be allowed, the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, be set aside. Counsel for the respondents however, submits that even if it is held that the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, it would not make any difference to the final out come, as the petitioner was required to file a regular suit. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. In the absence of any procedural rules, as to the manner in which an application under Section 22 of the Act, is to Civil Revision. No.4701of 2001 3 be treated the provisions of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, would come into play. For claiming any relief under Section 22 of the Act, an applicant would be required to file a separate suit. The appellate court therefore, rightly held that the application was not maintainable. As regards the submissions, by counsel for the petitioner that the appeal was not maintainable, suffice is to say that acceptance of this submission would not alter the final out come of the present petition, as even if, the order, passed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, is held to be without jurisdiction, the petitioners application would still not be maintainable. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the revision petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that any observation, made by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, as to the merits of the controversy, would not bind the parties and the petitioner would be free to pursue her remedy, if any, under Section 22 of the Hindu Successions Act in accordance with law. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 5th August, 2009 SKaushik