CR No.5234 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5234 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 20.8.2010 Baljinder Kaur ......Petitioner(s) Versus Surinder Singh etc. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 19.5.2010 whereby her application to implead her along with others as defendants in civil suit No.186 of 15.6.2006 titled as Surinder Singh v. Rai Singh, pending in the Court of Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, has been rejected. As per the averments, respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery against respondent No.2 on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 27.12.2004 executed by him in favour of respondent No.1. The petitioner along with Navdeep Kaur and Tenveer Singh made an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading them as defendants in the aforesaid suit alleging that the aforesaid suit was false and frivolous to the knowledge of the plaintiff-respondent and was filed to deprive the applicants including the petitioner of their valuable rights. It was further alleged that defendant-Rai Singh is missing since 5.5.2005 and the plaintiff is one of the henchmen of the persons who have kidnapped defendant- Rai Singh, whose whereabouts are not known. They have also got executed and registered a sale deed dated 5.5.2005 from defendant and CR No.5234 of 2010(O&M) 2 he is missing since then and even an FIR No.64 dated 14.8.2007 has been registered at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala. It was further alleged that the petitioner and others have already challenged the illegal sale deed dated 5.5.2005 by filing a civil suit which is pending and in case the petitioner-applicants are not impleaded as defendants to the suit, an irreparable loss and injury shall be caused to them. The aforesaid application was contested by the plaintiff-respondent submitting that the application has been filed only to prolong the litigation and defendant-Rai Singh had gone abroad as per the documents placed on record and this fact is very well within the knowledge of the applicants. The FIR had been registered against the plaintiff only to pressurize him to withdraw the suit and the applicants had no locus standi and cause of action to file the present application. The applicants had not filed any suit for declaration for presuming Rai Singh to be dead under Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act and thus, they could not even be impleaded as LRs of Rai Singh- defendant. Remaining averments made in the application were denied and dismissal of the application was prayed. The trial Court, while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner and others, observed as under: “Apparently the plaintiff has filed the present suit against defendant Rai Singh for recovery of Rs.13,13,750/- on the basis of pronote dated 27.12.2004 alleged to be executed by defendant Rai Singh in his favour after receiving the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as principle. Perusal of file reveals that said Rai Singh was proceeded against ex-parte in the present suit on 23.4.2007. The applicants have filed the present application CR No.5234 of 2010(O&M) 3 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on 15.1.2008 contending therein that said Rai Singh is missing since 5.5.2005 and as such they being his legal representatives be impleaded as parties to the suit. However, I do not find favour with this contention of the applicants as applicants have not placed any document on the record i.e. decree of court etc. seeking declaration to the effect that said Rai Singh had not been heard of for the last seven years or more and that he is presumed to be dead and applicants be treated as legal representatives. Moreover, plaintiff has placed on record certain documents perusal of which prima facie shows that defendant has gone abroad. Moreover, applicants have failed to produce any report or information given by them to police station or to any other agency of the effect that said Rai Singh is missing since 5.5.2005. Therefore, in view of above discussion I do not consider it necessary to implead applicants as party to the suit being legal representatives of defendant Rai Singh. Hence finding no merits in the present application same is hereby dismissed.” Not satisfied, the petitioner being one of the applicants, has filed the instant revision petition challenging the aforesaid impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner and others are necessary party to the suit as CR No.5234 of 2010(O&M) 4 whereabouts of defendant-Rai Singh are not known and they being his Class-I heirs will be adversely affected in case the suit is decided against Rai Singh-defendant. Moreover, the petitioner and others are claiming themselves to be necessary and proper party and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and as such, they are entitled to be impleaded as defendants, being the LRs of Rai Singh. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The petitioner is seeking impleadment in a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt executed by defendant-Rai Singh. The plaintiff-respondent is not claiming any relief against the petitioner, neither the petitioner has any locus standi to challenge the pronote and receipt in the presence of defendant-Rai Singh. The petitioner cannot be impleaded as defendant being LR of defendant-Rai Singh unless his civil death is presumed under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act. Admittedly, no such proceedings have been initiated by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner has nothing to do with the present suit for recovery against the defendant-Rai Singh on the basis of a pronote and receipt and the petitioner is neither necessary nor proper party. Thus, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. August 20, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE