Bindu Arora And ANR v. Hari Chand And ORS
CR-3107-2018 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3107-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.05.2018 Bindu Arora, Advocate and another ..... Petitioners
Versus
Hari Chand and others ..... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Bindu Arora, Advocate-petitioner No. 1, is present in person.
Mr. VM Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-caveators. RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Through this revision, the petitioner-plaintiffs laid challenge to the order dated 20.04.2018 of the Ist Appellate Court, affirming the order dated 31.03.2018 of the trial Court, whereby application of the petitionerplaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed. In nutshell, father of the petitioner-plaintiffs, along with his three brothers purchased a residential house bearing House Tax Unit No. 708/8, situated at Ganga Bag, Hansi, having 1/4th share each, vide registered sale deed No. 883 dated 16.10.1964. Thereafter, father of plaintiffpetitioners Nand Lal, sold out his 1/4th share to his brother Atam Parkash, vide registered sale deed No. 221 dated 02.05.1969 and thereafter, remained alive for around 40 years, but did not challenge the same during his life time. Now, his children have laid challenge to the aforesaid sale deed and subsequent decree on the basis thereof, suffered by the vendee in favour of Rishu Kataria 2018.05.22 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CR-3107-2018 (O&M) -2his wife and sons in present suit instituted in the year 2018. Petitioner-plaintiff No. 1, who is an Advocate by profession is present in Court today. She disclosed that she is aged around 51 years, having taken birth in December, 1967. She became major in the year 1985. Therefore, she could have file the instant suit challenging the aforesaid registered sale deed No. 221 dated 02.05.1969, immediately, within limitation period of three years, on her becoming major i.e. up to the year 1988. Therefore, prima facie it is evident that the instant suit is hopelessly time barred.
I have gone through the orders passed by both the Courts below and find no illegality or perversity in the same. Dismissed.
May 16, 2018 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Rishu Kataria 2018.05.22 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document