233

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-4865-2013 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 22.12.2022

Pargat Singh

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Bakhshish Singh and Others

....Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present :

Mr. G.S. Sirphikhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the respondents.

-.-

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227

of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.07.2013 whereby

the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for withdrawal of the suit

with liberty to file afresh with better particulars has been dismissed.

Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that a suit for

declaration was filed by five plaintiffs to the effect that plaintiff No.1,

namely, Smt. Bhiro, was the owner in possession of 07 kanals 17 marlas

while plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 namely, Pargat Singh, Balwinder Singh, Rajwant

Singh and Sarabjit Kaur, were owners in possession of land measuring 5

kanals and 13 marlas and further that the General Power of Attorney dated

28.11.2002 alleged to have been executed by plaintiff No.1, Smt. Bhiro, in

favour of defendant No.1 was forged and fabricated and consequently the

alleged sale deed dated 16.12.2002 executed by Bakhshish Singh

TRIPTI SAINI

2022.12.23 10:18

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CR-4865-2013 (O&M)

-2-

(defendant-respondent No.1 herein) in favour of Kulwant Kaur (defendant-

respondent No.2) was illegal, null and void.

Written statement was filed by the defendants. During the

pendency of the suit, on 05.04.2004, plaintiff No.1, Smt. Bhiro, got her

statement recorded that she had infact given the General Power of Attorney

in favour of Jagir Singh. Thereafter, on 31.07.2010 plaintiff No.1, Smt.

Bhiro, suffered a statement before the Lok Adalat withdrawing her suit on

the ground that the matter stood compromised with the defendants. The

defendant-respondents during their evidence produced GPA dated

28.11.2002 as Ex.D-1. In rebuttal, on 27.08.2002, an application for

examination of an expert was filed and thumb impression of Smt. Bhiro on

the original GPA Ex.D-1 with the thumb impression of Smt. Bhiro on the

statement dated 05.04.2004, recorded in Court, was sought to be compared.

The application was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated

07.12.2012. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision petition was preferred

being CR-314-2013 which was disposed of by observing as under :

“xxxx

If any one of the plaintiffs has been party to an order

which is prejudicial to the other plaintiffs who was not

a party to the criminal proceedings, the other plaintiff

shall be bound unless the other plaintiff is transposed

as an adversary in suit. The plaintiffs cannot speak in

two different languages, as it were, for, the conduct of

one plaintiff will cause an embarrassment in the trial.

It shall be open to the other party to secure a right to

TRIPTI SAINI

2022.12.23 10:18

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CR-4865-2013 (O&M)

-3-

demand that the document produced from the criminal

Court is taken on file only after due proof thereof.

xxx”

The plaintiff-petitioner thereafter filed an application under

Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking transposition of plaintiff

No.1, Smt. Bhiro, as defendant by stating that Smt. Bhiro had colluded with

the defendants. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1

Rule 10 CPC was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 31.05.2013.

The plaintiff-petitioner thereafter moved the present application on

08.07.2013 for withdrawal of the suit to file afresh on the same cause of

action. The said application was dismissed by the impugned order dated

26.07.2013.

Learned counsel for the pla