Hari Singh (Died) Through Lrs v. Pahlu And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CR-1691-2019
Pahlu and Another ....Respondents
! "!#$$%
! "
$% $ ! " &' (((( "!#$$%& '( ! #
')*++*',
- .) # /$ 0 " 1 0!1
! 2 3 # 4 ! 5 ##1 "1 /$ &'.#1"" 1
'6'" 0 "0!1
',*) " 7008" !
"1 # . &+ 'Hari Singh( 5 5 11$ "1 &' 0 5 115 + "
" !#
11 5
9''++**9 /$ &' 0 "! " &'.#1"" 1
5 " #
" "
5"1 ':*9+**6
5
+;''+**) &' 0
# 51"1 +;*6+*'*5 / 1$##1 ,1 '9005 "1 /$ &' 0 +;*9+*': >
5 '6*9+*'? " 5
5 "1 /$ &' 0 ')*'+*')@ 5
5 1
) ) 1# 1 $/
1 "!" # ! 1
+;*:+**:A
##1 = '1 '*00
- .'5 !
#1 # &+ ##1 5## /$5$" #1$
5 115 ! '9*9+*')
- .9 / 1$ 5
5 1 "1 /$ #
- .6 ##1
'6'00
- .;5 !
/$ &'.
#1"" 1 &+/
"1
5"1 &'@5!
##1 5 1 115 ##1 '1 '*00 5# " #!"
',;9 1
5 #1
# #! #!
1$ 5#$ ##1 / 115 ##1 5## /$5$" #1$
- .? 5 /$ 5$ " # ##1 5 115 "1" !# 9 @ !
1 1" # : 1 " # 1$ # /1 / 1 "!" /
""
# " #! 51/ ##1 /1 / 5 " ##1 1 # " 1 " &' 5/ !
#1$ &+5/ / $ /1 !
/ @ ##" 1 1 #1
1
#
# /$ 0 "7 & '-( ' . /(0-&1
& * '*( !
! "
# $ %&' () * +
)) , %--% "%$ !!! .&/ ( 0 * 12 %-&/!!!.3- 6
1 1" / 11 1$ # /$ 1 1 0 / " &'.#1"" 1 /
# /$ &' 0 "
11 "!9''++**9 1 1 "! " # B &+ ! 1
+;*:+**:&45/ 1 #1"" " #
" "
':*9+**6 /
" #1 #1"" &+ #!
',;951
#1$ &+ 51/
$5 &' ':*9+**6@##" 1 1#1
1
#
# /$ #
0"@ "
2& *-'*(' . /( 31
# /$ 0 " ) # 1 2& * '++( ' . /( 33& 14 56!7 !1&*,0'
(407
4 8'%&".$!9.:
; @ !
/ /$ 1 1 " # ?
1$
11 5
/$ &'
0 "!" &'.#1"" 19''++**9 " #
" "
5"1 ':*9+**6@11$ 5
+;''+**)/##1 ,1 '900 !/
!
>
5 '6*9+*'? @ 5
"1 ')*'+*') 5 1 " "
1 # /
1 "!" ! 1
)-) +;*:+**:@
1# /
1 "
"
11 / / "1 " " #
" # "
=
&'.#1"" < 451 /
1$ !
##1 '1 '*00 #1 # &+ ##1 5 115 ! '9*9+*')/ 1$ ##1 5 !
5 5/
115 @ # " 0 11 1$ # )
',;9 * 6 8 9 ::
8 ; </ 9 : : = '*( %>9 9 >
6 6 & ; </ 9 : : 6:9:::&> 6 >//& 989:
> ?&7 :?:>.7
6:;> >; ?:<9@A 49. ::>;>9>69 :>>?
/6: ;</ 9: : ; :6?
B ?: 8: > ?@ : 9 > > 6 989:
6> </ 9 : : >//7:?:>.7
6: @9/ 9: '
( > 8 67) '*( >// <</@ ;>9 <9@ ::: 9 6: ;
8
? 9 :./6 @ 9 :69 8>< : @ 6 9;>9</ ?: : : 9: : ?:</ C #!
+' '"
',;9 1$1$ 5 5 0" 1 5#1"" 5 4 " $
#1"" 51/
$ 1 , @ &'.#1"" 451 1 /
1
45 /
1$5 5
5"1 " 5
1$ !
##1 = '1 '*00 105 !
5 "1" &'.#1"" #1 #
)) / @ " !
"1 # 5 5"1 &' 0 @"$11 1$ ! 54 /$ 1 1 0 1
5 1$#1
/$ 10#
"0.
C " 0 "7) # 1 8'%' "33$!
!"
# $:.: 5 > <</ D</ > ??: /@ /: <</ :99:9*&96/*49 ?</:
89 8>&;> the fact of execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of Hari Singh on 26th of April 2004 was disclosed by the LRs of defendant No. 1 in their written statement. The said application was allowed by the order dated 13th of March 2018 by my predecessor court. Subsequently notice was issued to Hari Singh and because Hari Singh had died, his legal representatives were brought on record, who are contesting the present application, as well as the suit. No-fault/lapse can be imposed on the part of the applicant/plaintiff in not impleading the defendant No. 2 as a party to the suit initially. The plaintiff wasted no time in impleading him after coming to know about the execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of Hari Singh and immediately moved the application for his impleadment.
The case of the plaintiff is squarely covered within the four corners of judgment titled as "Nirmla Devi v. Surjit Singh" (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 606600, 2010 (5) law Herald 3622. The relevant part of para No. 5 of the judgement is reproduced as under: 'There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that there has to be an order by the Court under proviso to Section 21 of the Limitation Act that the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on an earlier date against the added party. Section 21 of the Limitation Act provides that suit against the added defendant shall be deemed to have been instituted when he was so made a party.
However, proviso to Section 21 of the Limitation Act lays down that where the Court is satisfied that omission to include a new plaintiff or defendant was due to a mistake made in good faith, it may be directed that the suit, as regards such plaintiff or defendant, shall be deemed to have been instituted on an earlier date. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that for the first time, Will in favour of the petitioners executed by Mansa Ram was disclosed to the plaintiff in January 2004 only. The plaintiff immediately moved application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleading the petitioners as party to the suit.
)+) Prior to it, the plaintiff had no knowledge of the Will existing in favour of the petitioners and therefore, the plaintiff had no reason to implead the petitioners as party to the suit. It is thus manifest that there was no lapse or fault on the part of the plaintiff in not impleading the petitioners as party to the suit initially. The plaintiff lost no time in impleading them after coming to know of the Will and immediately moved application for their impleadment. Consequently, requirements of proviso to Section 21 of the Limitation Act are fully satisfied and the trial court has passed the impugned order giving benefit of the said proviso to the plaintiff. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the impugned order of the trial court. Judgments C. R. No. 1609 of 2010 4 cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, referred to herein above, simply stipulate that there has to be an order by the trial court under proviso to Section 21 of the Limitation Act. In the instant case, the said requirement has been satisfied by the trial court by passing the impugned order.'
'* @ !
1 #/$1 1" # @ " 7 # 0.
C 1 $# $ #$ / 1$51 /
> #
" " !
"
#
',;9 51/
$ " " # 5 #!
+' '"
',;95 " 5 ""
A
51/ /1 !
$/ "" >
@ "() *+ , # 0.
C 1 #!"
',;9 / 1$ 0 / " 1 5 #1"" 5
4 " "5/ 51/
1 '' @ 0 1 $# 1
4 /$ 105 1 1 01 105 !
)3) /
" &' 0 ##1 1$/
115 5>
1 #/$1 1" # "
#( 0 * 12
#511
" @ /
1$ /
1
/
"!" # "1 " 51 /
5
@ / 4 # "
" 1
5 5"1 &' 0
5#
51# / 1$ ##1 ,1 '9005"1 5 5115 " 5
5"1 5 " " 1
5 1 @ 5 1/
#
1 " " &'.#1"" A
1 / / '+ 1!
""
" " 1 0
1 11 1$" $ # 5 "
!1> @! 5" "
"
@"$
!#
1$ '"!#$$%(
$