111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.905 of 2023

Date of Decision: 09.02.2023.

Anita Munjal

...Petitioner

Versus

Vibhuti Jauhari & Others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present:-

Mr. Ajay Dabas, Advocate

Mr. Anand Dabas, Advocate &

Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Ms. Prity Sharma, Advocate &

Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate,

for respondents No.1 & 2-Caveators.

MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.

By way of the instant revision-petition, the petitioner has laid

challenge to the order (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge

(Junior Division) Gurugram (for short ‘the trial Court’) on 16.01.2023,

whereby the application (Annexure P-3) moved by her under Order 1 Rule

10 read with Section 151 CPC with the prayer for being impleaded as a

party to the Civil Suit titled as “Vibhuti Jauhari & another vs. General

Public”, has been dismissed.

2.

Learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2-plaintiffs has put in

appearance in the present revision petition.

3.

I have heard learned counsels for the petitioner as well as for

respondents No.1 & 2-plaintiffs in this revision petition, at the preliminary

stage and have also perused the file carefully.

SEEMA SHARMA

2023.02.28 01:01

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/document

CR No.905 of 2023

-2-

4.

Learned counsels for the petitioner contend that the petitioner

happens to be the real sister of deceased Vinay Jauhari, the husband and

father of respondents No.1 & 2-plaintiffs (here-in-after to be referred as

‘the plaintiffs’) respectively and the suit property had been purchased in the

names of Vinay Jauhari and his mother Kaushalya Jauhari, out of the sale

proceeds of the property owned by the father of the petitioner and said

Vinay Jauhari and therefore, the petitioner and her three sisters have also

got right, title and interest in the said property and it being so, the petitioner

is a necessary party to the afore-said Civil Suit, filed by the plaintiffs for

seeking a decree for the declaration regarding their entitlement to inherit

the properties of the above-named deceased, for its proper and effective

adjudication but vide the impugned order, the trial Court has erroneously

dismissed the afore-mentioned application (Annexure P-3) and hence, the

said order deserves to be set aside.

5.

Per-contra, learned counsels for the plaintiffs argue that the

suit property had been purchased by Vinay Jauhari and Kaushalya Jauhari

in 1993 and the sale deed was registered in the year 1998 and thereafter,

Kaushalya Jauhari had gifted her share in this property to Vinay Jauhari

during her life time and thus, he had become its sole owner and after his

death, it is to devolve upon the plaintiffs by way of the natural flow of

inheritance and therefore, the petitioner has no concern with the same and

her above-referred application has rightly been dismissed.

6.

Concededly, the sale deed in respect of suit property had been

executed and registered in the names of said Vinay Jauhari and Kaushalya

Jauhari in the year 1998 and it also goes undisputed between the parties

SEEMA SHARMA

2023.02.28 01:01

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/document

CR No.905 of 2023

-3-

that plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of deceased

Vinay Jauhari and as such, they are his Class-I legal heirs. A perusal of the

copy of the plaint of another Civil Suit filed by the petitioner in Delhi High

Court for seeking the partition of the properties, including the suit property,

reveals that she has made specific averments therein regarding the

execution of the Gift Deed by Kaushalya Jauhari in favour of Vinay Jauhari

but however, in her application Annexure P-3, she has not