Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1835
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AMIT RAWAL, J.
Joginder Kaur – Appellant
Vs.
Bhag Singh – Respondent
CR No. 7844 of 2012
Decided On : 09-01-2018
For the Petitioner: Mahavir Sandhu
For the Respondent: Amit Jain, Parminder Singh
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transposition of legal representatives as co-plaintiffs must be in accordance with the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure and should not be allowed without proper justification.
Headnote:
Order 23 Rule 1-A - Impleading LRs as co-plaintiffs - Order 23 Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure and its interpretation in light of the judgments in 'Vidyawati v. Man Mohan and others' and 'Abraham v. Antony Mathew'. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the legal provisions and their application to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit seeking a decree for declaration of inheritance rights in certain properties. The court allowed an application to implead the legal representatives (LRs) of defendant No.5 as co-plaintiffs, which was contested by the petitioner-plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transposition of the LRs as co-plaintiffs was not sustainable and set aside the impugned order.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of allowing the LRs of defendant No.5 to be impleaded as co-plaintiffs in the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure and the judgments in 'Vidyawati v. Man Mohan and others' and 'Abraham v. Antony Mathew' to determine that the transposition of the LRs as co-plaintiffs was not justified.
Final Decision: The impugned order allowing the LRs of defendant No.5 to be impleaded as co-plaintiffs was set aside, and the revision petition was allowed.
Amit Rawal, J.
The petitioner-plaintiff is in revision petition against the impugned order dated 19.11.2012 (Annexure P-3), whereby an application moved for impleading the LRs of defendant No.5, namely, Mohinder Kaur and for amending the written statement by treating it as a counter-claim, has been allowed by transposing them as co-plaintiffs.
2. Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') and the remedy of LRs lies elsewhere.
3. He further submits that until and unless the LRs are impleaded in their individual capacity, they cannot set up a different plea and take a different stand than one already taken. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking following relief:-
"Suit for a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff has got right of inheritance in the estate left by Shri Chhaja Singh to the extent of 1/2 share in the l and bearing Khewat/Khatauni No. 13/15, 16, 24/53, 25/54, Khasra No.307//103/2 min (4-10), 307//103/2 min (4-9), 1- 888//307/13/4 (0-2), 1-888//207/23 (23-3), 1-888//307/31 (52- 17), 1-888//307/10/1/2/2 (21-12), 1-888/307/21 (13-0), as per the Jamabandi for the year 2005-06 situated in village Manakpur, H.B. No.35, Tehsil and District Ambala and land bearing Khewat/Khatauni No.151/197, 198/252, 184/236, 201/255, 24/25, Khasra No.15//21/1, (0-12), 16//16/2 (1-2), 25/1(4-4), 25/2/2 (3-16), 16/16/1/1 (1-11), 13//11/2/2 (0-9), 19 (0-11), 20/1/1 (3-2), 28/4 (7-13), 5 (0-19), 6 (7-8), 9/2 (1-0), 12/16 (8-0), 24/3/2 (3-16), 8 (8-0), 18 (8-0), 20/4 (0-12), 21 (7- 4), 2/1 (1-0), as per jamabandi for the year 2003-04, situated in Village Dudiana, H.B. No.36, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala and the mutation of inheritance bearing No.181, sanctioned on 14/.8.1935 and mutation No.327 sanctioned on 14/8.1935 of Village Manakpur and Dudiana, Tehsil and District Ambala regarding inheritance of Chhajja Singh entered in the name of Ram Kishan, mutation No.289 sanctioned on 13.7.1945 in favour of Labh Singh of Village Mankapur and Mutation No.526 of Village Dudiana, Tehsil and District Ambala and mutation No.381 sanctioned on 25.8.1953 of Village Manakpur, mutation No.638 of Village Dudiana, sanctioned on 1.7.1953 and mutation No.207, sanctioned on 25.8.1953 of Village Dudiana, Tehsil and District Ambala on the basis of registered Will dated 25.1.1935 regarding the inheritance of Labh Singh in favour of Joginder Kaur and Mohinder Kaur regarding the estate of Shri Chhaja Singh of all the three villages and Mutation No.15 on the basis of manipulated Gift Deed dated 25.4.1964 and mutation No.21 on the basis of manipulated gift deed dated 25.1.1965 entered and sanctioned in the name of Shri Bhag Singh on 20.8.1965 regarding the estate of Smt. Ind Kaur of Village Dudiana, Tehsil and District Ambala and mutation No.441 of Village Manakpur, Tehsil and District Ambala, sanctioned on 28.6.1968, on the basis of the Gift Deed dated 20.2.1961 executed by Smt. Ind Kaur in favour of Bhag Singh, on the basis of the judgment and decree dated 18.9.1986 in case No.455 of 1989 titled as "Amarjit Kaur v. Bhag Singh", passed by Shri S.K. Gupta, Sub Judge, Ist Class, Ambala by which the defendant No.1 has made the defendants No.2 to 4 as owners of the land, measuring 82 kanals 19 marlas out of land measuring 110 kanals 12 marlas to the extent of 3/4 share along with mutation No.508 regarding land situated in Village Manakpur, Tehsil and District Ambala and mutation No.445 in respect of land measuring 49 kanals 18 marals out of the total land measuring 66 Kanals 10 marals to the extent of 3/4 share situated in Village Dudiana, Tehsil and District Ambala are wrong, illegal, null and void, ineffective, inoperative, result of fraud and misrepresentations, not binding upon the plaintiff and the same are liable to be set aside by decla
