Balwinder Singh Malhi And Another vs Rajinder Singh Bath on 13 February, 2024
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has
submitted that by being impleaded as a legal heir of the original plaintiff
Rajinder Singh Bath, the wife is permitted to pursue the litigation. It is
further submitted that in any event the defendant-petitioners only want to
delay the proceedings and that they have no concern with the impleadment
of the legal heirs of the original plaintiff - Rajinder Singh Bath. It is argued
that with the amendment to the CPC, there is no limitation for bringing on
record the legal heirs. Reliance has been placed on Ram Sarup & Ors. vs.
Dilbagh Singh [2004(1) RCR Civil 94], Banta Singh vs. Khajan Singh
[2001(2) RCR Civil 326], Pradeep Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar Sharma
[2009(48) RCR Civil 358]. It is contended that since the defendant-
petitioners are wanting to remain in possession of the suit property after the
passing of the judgement and decree against them by the Trial Court, they
are bound to pay the mesne profits for use and occupation. He argued that
since a money decree had been passed against the defendant-petitioners, the
JITENDER KUMAR
2024.02.13 16:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
Chandigarh
CR No.372 of 2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:019469
interest of the plaintiff-respondent has to be suitably safeguarded before
staying their eviction.