CR No. 754 of 2019

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

*****

CR No. 754 of 2019

Date of Decision : 1.2.2019

Jasbir Singh

............Petitioner

v.

Charan Singh @ Gurcharan Singh (deceased) through LRs and others

.........Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

Present :

Mr. Deepk Girotra, Advocate, for the petitioner

---

Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral)

By this petition the petitioner challengs the order of the trial Court,

i.e. the Civil Judge (Senior Division), SBS Nagar, dated 7.12.2018, by which

the application of the petitioner filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, seeking to

implead one Surinder Kaur wife of Charan Singh as defendant no.4, has been

dismissed.

The contention of the petitioner before the trial Court, as also of

counsel for the petitioner before this Court, is that the stand of the respondent-

defendants being that Surinder Kaur has actually purchased the suit property on

7.2.2001, i.e. about 13 years prior to the institution of this suit in the present

lis, she is a necessary party to the suit and consequently the application should

actually have been allowed.

While dismissing the application the learned trial Court has

observed that in the plaint filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, the stand taken by

him is that Surinder Kaur is not the owner of the suit property. Hence, the

Ashwani Kumar

2019.02.04 15:48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR No. 754 of 2019

-2-

application, filed at the absolute fag end of the trial (after defence witnesses

have also been examined as not denied by learned counsel before this Court

also), it could not be allowed.

Having considered the matter, it is to be noticed that if Surinder

Kaur has indeed purchased the suit property on 7.2.2001, she may have been a

necessary party, but with the suit itself having been instituted in the year 2014

and the petitioner not having so impleaded her at that stage, with his specific

stand being that she is not the owner of the suit property, I cannot disagree with

the reasoning given by the trial Court. In fact it would seem that the application

filed at this stage of the trial, is only to delay proceedings.

Undoubtedly, if eventually the suit is even decreed in favour of the

petitioner, obviously Surinder Kaur not being a party thereto, such decree

would not be binding upon her; but that was an eventuality which the petitioner

should have taken care of at the initial stage or soon thereafter. Therefore,

impleading her at the fag end of the trial, thereby virutally re-opening it, is

impermissible.

Consequently, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned

order.

This petition is therefore dismissed in limine.

(AMOL RATTAN SINGH)

JUDGE

1.2.2019

Ashwani/dinesh

Speaking/Reasoned

Yes/No

Reportable

Yes/No

Ashwani Kumar

2019.02.04 15:48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document