Sukhjit Singh v. Paramjit Singh And ANR

CR No.879 of 2018 {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CR No.879 of 2018 Date of decision:12.04.2019 Sukhjit Singh ... Petitioner Vs.

Paramjit Singh and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kewal Krishan, Advocate for Mr. Premjit Kalia, Advocate for respondent no.1.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) The present revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 15.09.2017 (Annexure P-6) whereby an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure for impleading legal representatives of deceased Tara Singh- respondent No.1, has been dismissed. Mr.Veneet Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that application for bringing on record the legal representatives of Tara Singh was moved as Sukhjit Singh alongwith other persons were the legal representatives as essential and necessary for adjudication of the lis but the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application on the premise that in the previous application moved by the plaintiff for impleadment, only Sukhjit Singh was impleaded, though it was disclosed that there were other legal SAVITA KADIAN 2019.04.22 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CR No.879 of 2018 {2} heirs. Since it is a decree for possession, in the absence of impleadment of other legal heirs, there may be technical defects in execution of the decree, rather it is in the interest of the decree-holder. Per contra, Mr. Kewal Krishan, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that no other legal heirs of Tara Singh were brought on record. It is an attempt to delay the execution of the decree. The estate of deceased can also be represented by only one legal representative and thus, urged this Court for dismissal of the petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr.Veneet Sharma.

The law with regard to impleadment is no longer res integra in view of the ratio decidendi culled out by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Sardara Singh and another vs. Harbhajan Singh and others 1974 PLJ 341. Once in the previous application, Sukhjit Singh did not insist for impleadment of others, attempt is apparently to delay the adjudication proceedings. No ground for interference is made out, much less the order cannot be said to be suffering from illegality and perversity. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE April 12, 2019 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No SAVITA KADIAN 2019.04.22 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh