Civil Revision No. 7895 of 2011 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.7895 of 2011 (O&M)

Date of decision: 19.11.2012

Tript Kaur

....Petitioner

Versus

Joginder Singh and others

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

*****

Present:

Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate,

for respondent No.1.

A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL)

The order dated 26.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by

the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, dismissing the application

for impleadment of legal representatives of Tara Singh filed by the

plaintiff-petitioner (hereinafter referred as 'the petitioner'), is under

challenge.

While relying on a judgments delivered by this Court in

case Dhan Singh Vs. Gurdev Kaur and others, 2005 (4) RCR

(Civil) 805, Joginder Singh Vs. Chander Kanta through LR and

others, 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 418, it has been contended that where

the plaintiff did not know that the defendant had already died, then he

immediately moved the application on coming to know about his

Civil Revision No. 7895 of 2011 (O&M) 2

death, then the defect would be treated as repaired. This Court in

case Chander Kanta's case (supra), observed as under:-

“3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

order passed is contrary to the authoritative pronouncement by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karuppaswamy and others

v. C. Ramamurthy, 1993 (3) RRR 1222: AIR 1993 SC 2324. The

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the

suit was filed by the petitioner he was not in knowledge of the fact

that Ms. Chander Kanta was dead, therefore, it was open to him to

move an application immediately, which was done. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Karuppaswamy's case (supra) was pleased to

hold as under:-

“9.

Thus in our opinion the course set out in Munshi's

case (AIR 1983 SC 271) (supra) is attracted to the instant

case since the High Court has found that the plaintiff-

respondent had acted in good faith and had committed

mistake in that frame of mind. Munshi's case, in our view,

should clear the way in favour of the plaintiff-respondent,

ending in dismissal of this appeal.

12.

On the above analysis, we have no hesitation in

coming to the conclusion that the decision of the High Court

was correct for the reasoning it advanced as well as for the

effort we have made in refurbishing that view in the

processual rehearing. As a result, this appeal fails and is

hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.”

In this case also, the plaintiff-petitioner moved the

application as soon as she came to know about the death of Tara

Singh. The trial Court, however, has not taken right view of the

matter while dismissing the aforesaid application. I agree with the

contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that since at

the time of filing the written statement, the defendant did not disclose

about the death of Tara Singh, then how could he come to know

about his death. As soon as he came to know about the death of Tara

Singh, he moved the application for impleading his legal heirs.

Civil Revision No. 7895 of 2011 (O&M) 3

In these circumstances, this petition is accepted; the

impugned order is set aside and the application for impleading the

legal heirs of Tara Singh is allowed.

The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court

on 09.01.2013.

(A.N. Jindal)

19.11.2012

Judge

ajp