Punjab-Haryana High Court
Taro Kaur Johal Th. Gpa Dharamveer Singh vs Harinder Singh & Others on 19 November, 2013
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
CR-2715-2013 & CR-6155-2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
1- Civil Revision No.2715 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.11.2013
Taro Kaur Johal Th. GPA Dharamveer Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Harinder Singh & others ...Respondents
2- Civil Revision No.6155 of 2013
Kulwinder Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
Harinder Singh & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. R.S. Sihota, Senior Advocate with
Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner in CR-2715. Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate for respondent No.3 in CR-2715 and for petitioner in CR-6155.
Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This order will dispose of the above mentioned two revision petitions preferred against the same order dated 2.3.2013, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phillaur, whereby Kulwinder Kaur has been directed to be impleaded as defendant No.3 in the suit preferred by plaintiff Taro Kaur.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order on the ground that Taro Kaur had appointed an attorney namely, Dilbagh Singh who sold the property to his wife Singh Rajpal 2013.11.21 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR-2715-2013 & CR-6155-2013 2 namely, Kulwinder Kaur without any consideration. According to him, Kulwinder Kaur is not a necessary party. Thus, the impugned order is unsustainable.
Learned counsel for added defendant Kulwinder Kaur assails the order on the ground that Kulwinder Kaur ought to have been impleaded as plaintiff No.2 in the suit having become owner of the property. Thus, impugned order deserves to be set-aside.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
It appears that plaintiff Taro Kaur instituted a suit for possession claiming to be co-owner of the land as described in the plaint. Being a non-resident Indian, she appointed one Dilbagh Singh as her attorney to pursue the civil suit. Allegation of plaintiff is that the attorney sold the land in question to his wife namely, Kulwinder Kaur who later got her name entered in jamabandis as co-owner. As Kulwinder Kaur claimed ownership on the basis of sale-deed executed by attorney of Taro Kaur, she had no right to be a party to the suit, either as plaintiff or defendant.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is unsustainable. Plaintiff Taro Kaur is dominus litus. If any sale deed was executed by her attorney in favour of his wife, she would not become a necessary party to the suit instituted by Taro Kaur. I am of the considered view that presence of applicant Kulwinder Kaur before the court is not necessary to enable it to completely and effectually adjudicated upon the issue. She Singh Rajpal 2013.11.21 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR-2715-2013 & CR-6155-2013 3 has, thus, no right to be impleaded as plaintiff or defendant. I, thus, deem it fit to set-aside the order passed by the trial court. Revision petition No.2715 of 2013 is allowed in these terms. Revision petition No.6155 of 2013 stands dismissed.
Nothing said herein above, shall be deemed to be expression of opinion on merits of the main case.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 19.11.2013 'rajpal' Singh Rajpal 2013.11.21 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh