Back
2014 Supreme(Raj) 558
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sulkhan Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagmohan Singh & Ors. (Bhansali, J.)
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, J.
Sulkhan Singh & Ors.
Versus
Jagmohan Singh & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6820 of 2014, decided on 09.12.2014
Subject
Civil Law - Legal Representatives
Act Referred
Headnote
Writ petition dismissed.
fl-iz-la-] vkns'k 9 fu;e 7] /kkjk 151 & ,di{kh; vkns'k vikLr djuk rFkk fyf[kr dFku nk;j djuk & olh;r ds fujLrhdj.k gsrq okn & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh ds funsZ'k fn;s & vkosnu ds yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku izkFkhZ dh e`R;q gqbZ vkSj mlds fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa dks fl-iz-la- ds vkns'k 22 fu;e 4 ds rgr la;ksftr fd;k x;k & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gq, fl-iz-la- ds vkns'k 9 fu;e 7 /kkjk 151 ds rgr vkosnu [kkfjt fd;k fd izkFkhZx.k dk dksbZ Lora=@O;fDrxr vf/kdkj ugha Fkk] T;knk ls T;knk os okn esa Lo;a dks ,d i{kdkj ds :i esa la;ksftr dj ldrs Fks ;k ,d i`Fkd ls okn nk;j djds okn lEifr esa viuk Lo;a dk LoRo LFkkfir dj ldrs Fks vr% vfrfjDr fyf[kr dFku nk;j djus dk mUgsa dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha Fkk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & uksfVl dh rkehy ds mijkUr Hkh izkFkhZx.k fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k ugha gq, & vkosnu 14 o"kZ ds foyEc ds ckn vfUre lquokbZ dh voLFkk esa nk;j fd;k x;k & gLr{ksi okaNuh; ughaA
¼in la[;k 9] 23] 33 ls 35½
;kfpdk [kkfjt dhA
H.S. Sidhu, for Petitioner/s;
B.S. Sandhu, for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5
2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : respondents Jagmohan Singh and Sukhdev Singh filed a suit on 24.7.1996 seeking cancellation of will dated 8.10.1974 against Bhupendra Singh, Gurvendra Singh, Kaur Singh and Karnail Singh. The will was executed by Late Jangeer Singh in favour of Kaur Singh and Karnail Singh.
3. The trial court by order dated 7.1.1998 directed to proceed ex-parte against defendant No.4 Karnail Singh and the suit proceeded.
4. On 17.3.2012, Karnail Singh filed application under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC for setting ex-parte order dated 7.1.1998.
5. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs Jagmohan Singh and Sukhdev Singh. However, during the pendency of the said application, Karnail Singh died on 17.4.2012 and by order dated 24.5.2014, the petitioners Sulkhan Singh and others were impleaded as legal representatives of Karnail Singh on an application filed under Order XXII, Rule 4 CPC by the plaintiffs, whereafter the application filed by Late Shri Karnail Singh under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC was argued and the trial court by its order dated 2.9.2014 dismissed the application under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC.
6. Whereafter, the petitioners -legal representatives of Karnail Singh filed an application under Section 151 CPC contending that the applicants have been impleaded as defendants by order of the Court and therefore, they are entitled to file written statement independently, which is their legal right and therefore, they may be permitted to file written statement.
7. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs inter-alia on the ground that with the dismissal of the application under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC, the applicants being legal representatives of Karnail Singh have lost their right to file the written statement.
8. The defendant No.3 Kaur Singh also filed reply to the application and opposed the prayer.
9. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the applicants have got no independent / individual right, if they had any right, they could implead themselves as party in the suit or set up their own title in the suit property by filing a separate suit and they have no right to file additional written statement and dismissed the application.
10. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present composite writ petition questioning the validity of order dated 2.9.2014, whereby the application under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC was rejected by the trial court and the order dated 18.9.2014, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Sec. 151 CPC seeking opportunity to file written statement has been rejected.
11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court fell in error in rejecting the application under Section 151 CPC, inasmuch as, the petitioners were impleaded as party to the suit and on account of their impleadment, they have got a right to file the written statement.
12. It was further contended that merely because no written statement was filed by their father Karnail Singh and application filed by him under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC was rejected by the trial court, the same cannot affect the right of the petitioners, who have got an individual / independent right to file written statement as coparceners. It was submitted that the trial court was bound to give permission to file written statement even for the purpose of compliance of principles of natural justice.
13. Reliance was placed on J.C. Chatterjee & Ors. vs. Shri Sri Kishan Tandon & Anr. : AIR 1972 SC 2526; Sumtibai & Ors. vs. Paras Finance Co. : 2007 DNJ (SC) 1019.
14. In regard to the order dated 2.9.2012 dismissing the application under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC, it was submitted that sufficient cause was made out by Late Karnail Singh for not appearing in the suit earlie
