Charankamal Singh Alias Chattar Singh v. Bachittar Singh And ORS

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.906 of 2025 Date of decision: November 12th, 2025 Charankamal Singh alias Chattar Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

Bachittar Singh and others .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:

Ms. Sukriti Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Anil Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. J.S. Grewal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

Mr. Divanshu Jain and Mr. Abhinav Goel, Advocates for respondents No.6 and 7.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1.

On 20.08.2025, this Court was pleased to pass the following order:

"Present:

Mr. Kartik Mehla, Advocate for Mr. Anil Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos.6 and 7.

**** On 03.07.2025, this Court had passed the following order:- "Present:

None for the petitioner.

Mr.Jaskamal Singh Grewal, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3.

Mr.Divanshu Jain, Advocate and Mr.Abhinav Goel, Advocate

-2for respondents no.6 and 7.

*** As per the report of the Registry, respondents no.1 and 8 have been served but no one has appeared on their behalf. However, respondent no.4 has not been served. Respondent no.5 is stated to have died.

The petitioner would implead the legal representatives of respondent no.5.

Let fresh notice be issued to respondent no.4, after the petitioner complies with the objection raised by the Registry.

Adjourned to 20.08.2025.

July 03, 2025"

No application for impleadment of the legal representatives of respondent No.5 has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for one last adjournment to do the needful.

It is made clear that in case the same is not done then the interim order in favour of the petitioner would be liable to be vacated.

As per report of the Registry, fresh notice issued to respondent No.4 has not been received back either served or otherwise.

Let again fresh notice be issued to respondent No.4 for 12.11.2025.

Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to serve respondent No.4 through her counsel before the trial Court as well as through dasti process.

20.08.2025"

2.

No application for impleadment of the legal representatives of respondent No.5 has been filed even today in spite of last opportunity having

-3been granted. Even respondent No.4 has not been served as it is stated that she has left the said address.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition be disposed of but liberty be granted to the petitioner to revive the same by moving an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of respondent No.5 and also by mentioning the correct address of respondent No.4.

4.

In view of the above, the present revision petition is disposed of with liberty aforesaid.

November 12th, 2025 (VIKAS BAHL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No