C.R. NO. 6067 OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. NO. 6067 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 16.03.2010 Narinderpal Kaur ...Petitioner versus Subhash Kumar Bansal and ors. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Ms. Sonal Datta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is a revision petition against the order dated 11.08.2009 passed by the District Judge, Patiala vide which the appeal qua respondents No.2 to 5 was dismissed. Subhash Kumar Bansal filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 28.12.1992 against Joginder Singh (deceased), Ajit Singh (deceased), Khushwinder Kaur and Subhinder Kaur. The said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 05.05.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala. The present petitioner preferred appeal against the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2007 before District Judge, Patiala. The present petitioner, being legal heir of Ajit Singh, filed an C.R. NO. 6067 OF 2009 -2- application under Section 151 CPC for dispensing with the service of respondents No.2 to 5 in that appeal. It is mentioned in the application that the suit titled as, “Subhash Kumar Bansal vs. Joginder Singh and others” was filed and Joginder Singh died during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs were brought on the record. Though the suit was contested by all the legal heirs of Joginder Singh but the present appeal has been filed by the petitioner only. The other legal heirs have not joined the petitioner in filing the appeal. The prayer was made to dispense with the service of respondents No.2 to 5. Subhash Kumar Bansal-plaintiff now respondent filed reply wherein in the prayer clause, he has stated that he has got no objection if the appeal of Narinderpal Kaur-present petitioner is dismissed qua respondents No.2 to 5 for non-compliance of the order of the Court or in dispensing with the service of these persons. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal qua respondents no.2 to 5. The said order has been challenged in the present revision petition. I have heard both the sides carefully and have gone through the records of the case. The learned District Judge has two options – either to accept the prayer of appellant in dispensing with the service of respondents No.2 to 5 or to dismiss the appeal qua respondents No.2 to 5 for want of prosecution. C.R. NO. 6067 OF 2009 -3- From the impugned order, it is clear that the appeal has not been dismissed for want of prosecution. So, the prayer of the petitioner for dispensing with the service of respondents No.2 to 5 should have been accepted by the District Judge in as much as the same has not been opposed by the contesting respondents. In these circumstances, the present revision petition stands accepted and the order dated 11.08.2009 stands modified. It is observed that the service of respondents No.2 to 5 before the District Judge, stands dispensed with. Disposed of. MARCH 16, 2010 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE