Narender And ORS v. Ram Rati

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CR-1518-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.10.2021 Narender and others

...Petitioners

Versus

Ram Rai

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:

Mr. KulvirNarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Amardeep Hooda, Advocate, for the respondent.

*** ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) Petition herein,under Article 227 of Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 18.08.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned District Judge, Rohtak, whereby an application filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment in pending appeal, has been dismissed. 2.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the case file.

3.

Impugned order dated 18.08.2021 passed by the Learned District Judge, Rohtak is, inter alia, premised on the following reasoning: "Now Appellants want to change their stand and want to plead that not only Smt. Ramrati but Seema; Ahsash and Amandeep (widow; daughter and son of RAvinder, the son of Sajjan Singh) had also entered into the agreement and in fact, Smt. Seema had signed the agreement dated 25.04.2007 not as a witness but as an executant, not only for herself but also on behalf of her children. I am of the considered view that the impugned application is wholly misconceived. Though the present application is purported to have been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, yet the Appellants want to change their whole case. They want to allege and plead that the agreement dated 25.04.2007 was executed not only by Smt. Ramrati but also by Smt. Seema, not only for herself but also as the guardian of her SHALINI BHATIA 2021.10.02 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

minor children. Seema is the wife of Ravinder, who was the son of Sajjan Singh. The application is wholly misconceived and the same is hereby dismissed.

Now, the case is adjourned to 22.03.2021 for arguments on merits."

4.

There is no room for interference in the aforesaid valid reasons recorded by the learned appellate Court.

5.

No material irregularity in law or procedure has been committed in the pending appeal, so as to exercise extraordinary revisional jurisdiction herein.

6.

Dismissed.

01.10.2021 (ARUN MONGA) vandana JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No SHALINI BHATIA 2021.10.02 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document