Himmat Singh vs Dilbahadar Singh and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner states that only respondent No. 1 is the contesting respondent. In view of this,

service on other respondents is dispensed with.

Instant revision petition has been filed impugning the order dated 5.3.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra,

whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, has been declined.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed a suit for partition against Phool Kaur and others. During the pendency of the suit, Phool

Kaur died on 27.5.2009. After the death of Phool Kaur, application was moved for impleading the legal representatives on the basis of registered

gift deed dated 14.2.2006, which is alleged to have been executed by Phool Kaur in favour of the petitioner/applicant. It is alleged that it was

never incorporated in the revenue record. However, petitioner states that he is in possession of the land.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Admittedly, Phool Kaur had executed disputed gift deed, validity of which is yet to be determined by the court in accordance with law.

Be that as it may, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 does not oppose the impleadment of the petitioner/applicant as defendant in the suit. In

view of the above, application is allowed, petitioner is ordered to be impleaded as defendant No. 5 in the suit. Petitioner will be at liberty to file

written statement and respondent No. 1/plaintiff will be at liberty to file rejoinder to the same. Thereafter, learned trial court shall make endeavour

to decide the suit as early as possible specifically in view of the order passed in Civil Revision No. 1491 of 2013 titled ''Dilbahadar Singh vs.

Harpiari and others'' decided on 3.4.2013. It is made clear that the validity of the gift deed will be independently decided by the court. Disposed of

in above terms.