Jagdish v. Satyawan And ORS.

C.R. No.6601 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6601 of 2016 Date of Decision.04.10.2016 Jagdish son of Sh. Puran .......Petitioner Vs Satyawan and others ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL -.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) The petitioner-defendant No.1 is aggrieved of the impugned order whereby the application filed by the plaintiff that defendant No.2 Jai Pal has been made party as pro forma defendant but inadvertently one Chawli daughter of Har Chand was not impleaded in the case and therefore, seeking her impleadment, has been allowed.

Mr. Manoj Chahal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the decree is of the year 1990 and the suit has been filed in 2011 and therefore, the application was totally misconceived and devoid of merit.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book. The person sought to be impleaded as defendant was also co-defendant in the aforementioned decree. Since she is a co-owner in the property, therefore, the suit challenging the decree could not have been decided in her absence, rightly so, the application has been allowed, by taking into consideration that the application was belated, the Court has imposed costs of `2000/- as well.

I do not find any reason to differ with the order under challenge PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.10.13 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.R. No.6601 of 2016 -2passed by the Court below, much less, the order cannot be said to be passed without jurisdiction. No ground for interference is made out. The revision petition is dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE October 04, 2016 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.10.13 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document