Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC: 097967

CR-4413-2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-4413-2019

Date of Decision: July 31, 2023

Sanjiv Deepak Rahis @ Sanjiv Deepak Rais

...Petitioner

Versus

Rishab Rai Rahis and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate,

for respondent No. 1.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1.

Petitioner/Defendant No. 1 – Sanjiv Deepak Rahis @ Sanjiv

Deepak Rais, has filed the present revision petition, under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the CPC, for setting aside

impugned order dated 15.05.2019 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Court of

learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, whereby application under

Order XI Rules 1 and 2 CPC, filed by him, was dismissed.

For convenience, parties to the lis, hereafter shall be referred to as

their original position in the suit.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff (Rishab Rai Rahis), who is

residing in United States of America, instituted a Civil Suit No. 658 of

2010/2015, through his Special Power of Attorney, namely, Gulshan Rai

PRASHANT KAPOOR

2023.08.03 09:16

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment

Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC: 097967

CR-4413-2019

2

Narang, against the defendants, namely, (1) Sanjiv Deepak Rahis and (2) Sudha

Popli. By way of said suit, plaintiff has sought relief of declaration alongwith

permanent injunction on the ground that he is son of Sunil Kumar Rahis and

grandson of Ram Parkash Rahis, while defendant No. 1 is son and defendant

No. 2 is daughter of said Ram Parkash Rahis. Father and grandfather of the

plaintiff expired on 08.09.1994 and 22.05.2003, respectively, leaving behind

certain properties, as detailed in para Nos. 3 and 4(a) & (b) of the plaint.

Plaintiff claimed that he is entitled to his share in the suit land, which is the

family properties of the parties to the suit. He is entitled to his share in the

properties left by his father as well as grandparents.

3.

Defendants contested the suit. In the written statement filed by

defendant No. 1, he raised specific preliminary objection No. 4 regarding

concealment and intentionally suppressing of true facts that mother of the

plaintiff, namely, Smt. Urmila, at the time of divorce with Sunil Kumar Rahis

(father of the plaintiff), had received Rs.3,00,000/- in lump-sum towards dowry

articles and permanent maintenance etc. Further, an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-

was deposited for plaintiff (who was then minor), towards share in all

properties. Said amount deposited qua the share of plaintiff in the shape of

FDR was subsequently got encashed after he attained maturity. Thus,

defendant No. 1 opposed the claim of the plaintiff of having any right in the

properties/assets left behind by his father (Sunil Kumar Rahis) and grandfather

(Ram Parkash). Contents of preliminary objection No. 4 of the written

statement filed by defendant No. 1, reads as under:-

PRASHANT KAPOOR

2023.08.03 09:16

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment

Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC: 097967

CR-4413-2019

3

“4.

That the plaintiff has concealed and intentionally

suppressed the true facts. The agreement of compromise was

executed on 6.7.1993 by Smt. Urmila mother of plaintiff with her

husband Sunil Kumar at the time of divorce which was duly

signed by mother of plaintiff and also Gulshan Rai Narang his

maternal uncle and who has now filed this suit as Power of

attorney of plaintiff. The mother of plaintiff had received Rs.

3,00,000/- in lump sum towards dowry articles, and permanent

maintenance etc. and it was further agreed that a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited for Plaintiff (then minor son of

Urmila) towards share in all the properties. But the plaintiff and

his power of attorney Sh. Gulshan Rai Narang, ha