Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Remarkable Constructions Private ... vs Smt. Bhuro @ Chameli & Others on 8 August, 2017
Author: Raj Mohan Singh
Bench: Raj Mohan Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigar
116 CR No.5171 of 2017
Date of decision:8.8.2017
M/S REMARKABLE CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LTD. &
ANOTHER
......petitioners
Versus
SMT. BHURO @ CHAMELI & OTHERS
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Ashwani Gaur, Advocate
for the caveator-respondents.
****
Raj Mohan Singh, J.(oral) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 21.7.2017 vide which application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by them for impleading real owners/ allottees was dismissed.
Suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession and permanent injunction was filed. In para No.3 of the plaint, sales in favour of defendants No.9 to 12 were noticed and were challenged. Prayer in the application was that defendant Nos. 9 to 12 have carved out the suit plots even prior to filing of the suit in favour of allottees. The application was contested by the plaintiff on the ground that TDI Infrastructure Ltd. was not a co-sharer. No documents were produced in 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2017 04:59:34 ::: CR No.5171 of 2017 -2- respect of any connectivity with the suit property and the documents so produced were fabricated. Authorized person, namely, Rama Nand Sharma had already undertaken before the trial Court that construction over the suit land to the extent of 1/6th share shall be subject to the decision of the case i.e. construction was on the risk of defendants No.9 to 12 in case of any decision goes against them. After availing 33 opportunities for leading defence evidence, this application came to be filed at such a belated stage. The civil suit is at the stage of arguments since 10.11.2015.
Apparently, petitioners- defendants have already availed numerous opportunities for leading defence evidence. In view of undertaking given by the authorised person and the stage of the litigation where even on two occasions the case was partly heard by the trial Court, I feel no justification in interfering in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
(RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
August 08, 2017
anita
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2017 04:59:35 :::