Haripal Singh Ahalwat vs Wazir Singh Poonia and others

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 10956-CII of 2012

Allowed as prayed for.

CR No. 2575 of 2012

Plaintiff Haripal Singh Ahalwat has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing this revision petition to challenge order dated 06.01.2012 Annexure P-4 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar thereby deleting names of defendants No. 2 and 3 Wazir Singh Poonia, Advocate and P. C. Gera (respondents No. 1 and 2 herein) from the array of defendants in the suit filed by plaintiff-petitioner against them as well as against Kuldesh defendant No. 1 (proforma respondent No. 3 herein). Case of the plaintiff-petitioner, as appears from the impugned order and copy of plaint shown by the counsel for plaintiff-petitioner, is that defendant No. 1 orally agreed to sell some property to the plaintiff for Rs. 10,00,000/-and received cheque dated 09.05.2008 for Rs. 8,00,000/-from the plaintiff. It is also alleged that defendant no. 1 in collusion with defendants No. 2 and 3 encashed the said cheque but did not execute the sale deed. In between, defendant No. 1 resiling from the agreement had returned Rs. 2,00,000/-on 12.06.2008 and Rs. 1,00,000/-on 26.06.2008 through defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff but again defendant No. 1 agreed to execute sale deed of the property and plaintiff repaid Rs. 1,00,000/-to defendant No. 1 on 16.07.2008 and Rs. 1,00,000/-on 29.07.2008. However, defendant No. 1 ultimately resiled. Accordingly plaintiff has sought recovery of Rs. 7,00,000/-from all the defendants. Allegations against defendants No. 2 and 3 are that they got opened account of defendant No. 1 in bank falsely depicting her to be wife of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 3 is Manager of the said Bank.

Defendants No. 2 and 3 moved application for deleting their names from the array of defendants. The said application has been allowed by the trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-4 and names of defendants No. 2 and 3 have been ordered to be deleted from the array of defendants. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition.

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

Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner vehemently contended that defendants No. 2 and 3 in connivance with defendant No. 1 got opened bank account in the name of defendant No. 1 in the bank where defendant No. 3 P. C. Gera is Manager, by falsely depicting defendant No. 1 to be wife of the plaintiff. However, on the basis of this contention, defendants No. 2 and 3 cannot be held liable to pay the amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-to the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Plaintiff had admittedly issued cheque dated 09.05.2008 in favour of defendant No. 1 for Rs. 8,00,000/-The said cheque has been encashed by defendant No. 1. Even if in the bank account defendant No. 1 had not depicted herself to be wife of the plaintiff, even then she was entitled to encash the said cheque which had admittedly been issued in her favour by the plaintiff. Consequently, wrong depiction of defendant No. 1 as wife of the plaintiff while opening the bank account would not saddle defendants No. 2 and 3 with civil liability to pay the cheque amount to the plaintiff. However, question of criminal liability of defendants No. 2 and 3 or of disciplinary action against defendant No. 3 on the basis of aforesaid allegations is not in issue in this revision petition. In fact, it appears that defendant No. 1 claims herself to be wife of the plaintiff-petitioner. Complaint under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is also said to have been instituted by defendant No. 1 against plaintiff. Complainant has instituted criminal complaint against all the three defendants. It appears that present suit has been instituted by impleading defendants No. 2 and 3 along with defendant No. 1 to defeat the claim of defendant No. 1 that she is wife of the plaintiff. However, keeping in view the averments made by the plaintiff-petitioner in the plaint, taking the same at face value, defendants No. 2 and 3 cannot be held liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff. Consequently names of defendants No. 2 and 3 have rightly been ordered to be deleted from the array of defendants. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial Court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India. The revision petition is found to be meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.