Civil Revision No.4805 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4805 of 2011 Date of Decision:10.08.2011 Arya Samaj, Barnala .....Petitioner Versus Amarjit Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J .(Oral) Concisely, the facts, which require to be noticed, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that originally, Karnail Singh son of Balwant Singh plaintiff (for brevity “the original plaintiff”) filed the suit (Annexure P2) for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Arya Samaj, Barnala through Shri Bharat Bhushan Menon, Advocate-petitioner-defendant (for short “the defendant”) from interfering in his possession in any manner and from demolishing the shop in dispute. 2. As luck would have been, the original plaintiff Karnail Singh died on 9.9.2010, during the pendency of the suit, Amarjit Kaur, widow, Parminder Singh son, Reeta Rani and Anita Rani daughters, moved an application (Annexure P3) for impleading them as legal representatives of original plaintiff Karnail Singh. 3. The defendant contested the prayer of the LRs of original plaintiff, filed the reply and prayed for dismissal of the application (Annexure P3). 4. The trial Court accepted the application and impleaded them as LRs of the original plaintiff, by virtue of impugned order dated 12.5.2011 (Annexure Civil Revision No.4805 of 2011 -2- P1). 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the trial Court, the petitioner- defendant preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context. 7. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that the trial Court committed a legal mistake in impleading the LRs of original plaintiff, is neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in cases Shism Ram and another v. Vijender and others 2010 (2) PLR 723 and Balbir Singh v. Rajwinder Kaur 2010 (4) PLR 192 are at all applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. As is clear, in Shism Ram's case (supra), impleading of LR by the trial Court, without determining as to whether he was actually legal representative of the deceased or not, was held to be illegal. Sequelly, in Balbir Singh's case (supra), plaintiff (therein) was proved to be in exclusive possession of the suit land as per entries in the jamabandi and khasra girdawari and he claimed that defendant has threatened him to forcibly dispossess from the land in dispute. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant (therein) died and there was no pleading that his LRs also threatened him to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff. So, on the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of that case, it was observed that “in the absence of pleading that LRs of defendant also threatened to dispossess the plaintiff illegally and forcibly, relief of permanent injunction could not be granted.” Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the instant controversy. 9. As is evident from the record that original plaintiff filed the suit, seeking a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from Civil Revision No.4805 of 2011 -3- demolishing the shop in dispute. After the death of original plaintiff, the cause of action at the hands of defendant of forcible dispossession, still exists. It is not a matter of dispute that Amarjit Kaur is widow, while Parminder Singh is son and Reeta Rani & Anita Rani are the daughters of original plaintiff Karnail Singh, have legal right to be impleaded as his LRs and to prosecute the main suit. 10. Therefore, to me, the trial Court has rightly impleaded them as LRs of original plaintiff, in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigation, by way of impugned order (Annexure P1). Such impugned order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest, it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such. 13. Needless to mention that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect in any manner on the merits of the case as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding this revision petition. 10.8.2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE