JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Before this Bench proceeds to examine the merits of the case, it is important to note that the Courts are expected to act as parens patriae, which means that the Presiding Judges of the Courts are expected to assume the role of a parent in order to protect the interest of the persons, who are legally or otherwise unable to act or defend on their own behalf in the litigation. Whenever the presiding judge(s) of the court observes that one of the party to the litigation is unable to properly prosecute or defend his own case because of legal disability or poverty or illiteracy, the courts are expected to assume the role of a parent to do complete justice. The learned Presiding Judge of the First Appellate Court by a well-reasoned judgment has very ably discharged the aforesaid function.

2. Through this revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 09.12.2020, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal. The trial Court on 22.09.2020 dismissed the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, however, the First Appellate Court has reversed the same vide the impugned order.

3. Some facts are required to be noticed. Sh. Sahib Singh and Smt. Kesar Kaur were blessed with ten children. Raghbir Singh( Plaintiff No.3), one of their son, is undisputedly mentally retarded to the extent of 75% since birth. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1 in the suit. She was previously married to Jaswant Singh, the brother of Raghbir Singh. During the subsistence of their marriage for 22 years, they are stated to have been blessed with three children and who have got married. Thereafter, the petitioner claims that she divorced Jaswant Singh on 12.07.2013 by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 1955 Act ) and then got re-married on 24.07.2013 to Raghbir Singh, plaintiff No.3in a Gurudwara at Sangrur in the State of Punjab i.e. within a period of 12 days of the divorce. Thereafter, she obtained permission to sell the entire agricultural land of plaintiff no.3 measuring 43 Kanals and 7 Marlas by filing a petition under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 1956 Act ) The aforesaid petition was filed by Raghbir Singh-plaintiff No.3 through defendant No.1-petitioner herein i.e. Sarjeet Kaur as his next friend. In the petition u/s 8, only the general public was impleaded as a respondent. In order to serve notice of the petition, a notice was published in a newspaper Ashiana on 25.02.2016 for appearance before the Court on 26.02.2016 i.e. the very next day. On the basis of the aforesaid publication, the Court proceeded with the trial of the case and the petition was allowed. The Court granted permission to sell the entire land subject to the condition that the sale would be on the market rate prevailing in the locality and the amount so realized, would be deposited in the account of Raghbir Singh as a fixed deposit and the same shall not be withdrawn without the permission of the Court.

4. Three plaintiffs, namely Harbhajan Singh, Surat Singh and Raghbir Singh, the brothers, filed a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction against Sarjeet Kaur (the petitioner herein) and Jaswant Singh. It has been pleaded that the proceedings for getting permission of the court to sell the agricultural land is an act of fraud on the court and the Court which granted permission had no jurisdiction. It has been pleaded that Jaswant Singh had stage-managed the divorce. The subsequent petition under Section 8 of the 1956 Act was filed in order to grab/usurp the property of his brother i.e. plaintiff No.3. Along with the suit, an application for grant of temporary injunction was also filed. Only defendant No.1 chose to defend the suit. The learned trial Court did not grant the relief of temporary injunction