Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Singh vs Satwinder Singh & Ors on 7 March, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Civil Revision No.1740 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.1740 of 2014
Date of Decision:- 7.3.2014
Joginder Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
Satwinder Singh & Ors.
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Kulbhushan Raheja, Advocate for the petitioner.
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (Oral)
The compendium of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, respondent Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs Satwinder Singh son of Joginder Singh and others (for brevity "the plaintiffs"), have instituted the civil suit against remaining respondents No.5 to 14-defendants No.1 to 10 Kuldeep Kaur w/o Gurdyal Singh and others, including petitioner-defendant No.11 Joginder Singh son of Chand Singh (for short "the defendants"), for a decree of declaration to the effect that, notwithstanding anything contained contrary to the plaintiffs in the revenue record or record of title, they are co-owners to the extent of 1/4th and ½ shares mentioned therein in the parcels of the land in dispute. They have also challenged the judgment & decree dated 16.10.1981 and resultant mutation No.2667, in pursuance thereof sanctioned in favour of Kuldeep Kaur defendant No.1 and the sale deeds dated 18.5.1987 & 20.5.1987 executed by her in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 6 as illegal, null, void and inoperative on the rights of the plaintiffs.
2. Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.11 11:44 Having completed all the codal formalities, as soon as, the case I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1740 of 2014 2 was slated for rebuttal evidence and arguments, in the meantime, petitioner- defendant No.11 has moved an application (Annexure P1) to transpose him as plaintiff No.5. The trial Court dismissed the same, by virtue of impugned order dated 28.2.2014 (Annexure P2).
3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-defendant No.11 has preferred the present petition, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has a common interest with other plaintiffs in the suit land, so, he is liable to be transposed as plaintiff No.5, is neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in cases Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala 2010(4) PLR 336 and Iqbal Singh and another v. Joginder Pal Jain and others 2011(3) PLR 769 are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, on the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of those cases, it was held that the transposition can be made to do complete justice between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. Possibly, there can hardly be any dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the present petitioner in the instant controversy, for the reasons mentioned here-in-below.
6. As is evident from the record that the plaintiffs have filed the civil suit against the defendants in the manner depicted here-in-above. They have also challenged the pointed decree and mutation sanctioned in favour Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.11 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1740 of 2014 3 of defendant No.1 and the sale deeds executed by her in favour of defendants No.3 to 6. The plaintiffs have claimed the exclusive ownership of entire property in the plaint. They did not claim that he (petitioner) was also a co-sharer or he has a common interest in the suit land and could not be joined as plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit. Therefore, he cannot possibly be transposed as plaintiff, particularly when he can claim his right in the land in litigation as he is a party in the main suit.
7. Not only that, it is not a matter of dispute that petitioner- defendant No.11 was appearing in the Court since 30.5.2009. Since then, he has never prayed to transpose him as plaintiff. As the case reached at the final stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments, therefore, now he has moved the indicated application only to delay the disposal of the main suit and he cannot be transposed as plaintiff at this belated stage.
8. Therefore, the trial Court has correctly dismissed the application of petitioner-defendant No.11 to transpose him as plaintiff, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P2), which, in substance, is as under:-
"Through the present suit, the plaintiffs have claimed the entire property of Chand Singh by way of this declaration and the plaintiffs have never ever mentioned in the plaint that defendant No.11 Joginder Singh is also having any share in the suit property along with the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs are claiming their exclusive right over the suit property by seeking declaration regarding the suit property. It is not a case where the plaintiffs have ever admitted that defendant No.11 Joginder Singh is also having any share in the suit property but he could not join the plaintiffs at the time of the institution of the suit due to any reason. Further, it is not a case where defendant No.11 Joginder Singh is kept as proforma defendant due to non joining the plaintiffs at the time of the institution of the suit. Moreover, applicant/defendant No.11 Joginder Singh is appearing in this case since 30.5.2009 and since then he never claimed himself to be transposed as plaintiff in the present suit and certainly, the present application has been filed at a belated stage just to delay the proceedings of the present suit.Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.11 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1740 of 2014 4
Once, the plaintiffs are not admitting any share of defendant No.11 Joginder Singh in the suit property and they are claiming themselves to be owners of the entire suit property then certainly, defendant No.11 Joginder Singh will not be better benefitted in any manner even if he is transposed as plaintiff in the present suit because no relief qua his claims is ever mentioned or discussed in the present suit. Accordingly, I find no ground to transpose defendant No.11 Joginder Singh as plaintiff No.5 in the present suit and the application in hand filed by defendant No.11 Joginder Singh stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly."
9. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has examined the matter in right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this regard. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with, in the exercise of superintendence powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner-defendant No.11, so, the impugned order (Annexure P2) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
10. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition filed by the petitioner-defendant No.11 is hereby dismissed as such.
Sd/-
(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 7.3.2014 AS Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.11 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh