Jaswinder Kaur vs Prabhjot Kaur and others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff-Jaswinder Kaur aggrieved by order dated 28.12.2012 Annexure P-3 passed by learned Additional Civl Judge (Senior Division), Mansa has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the said order. This case is another instance of litigation among family members which is unfortunately rising day by day.

Baldev Singh was owner of 64 Kanals land in suit and 50 Kanals 14 Marlas other land. Baldev Singh transferred 64 Kanals suit land to defendants/respondents No. 1 and 2 who are daughters of Jasvir Kaur daughter of Baldev Singh vide deed dated 04.02.2009 and transferred the other 50 Kanals 14 Marlas land to his wife defendant No. 3 vide separate deed dated 04.02.2009. Plaintiff is also daughter of Baldev Singh. In suit No. 91 filed by plaintiff against defendant-respondent No. 3 herein to challenge the transfer deed in her favour, compromise was effected on 12.06.2010 in Lok Adalat and plaintiff was given share in said 50 Kanals 14 Marlas land. The said suit was disposed of accordingly. Thereafter the plaintiff filed this suit on 25.09.2010 to challenge the transfer deed in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2.

Defendants No. 1 and 2 are contesting the suit.

Defendant No. 3 who is mother of the plaintiff-petitioner initially filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff in the instant suit. However, later on, defendant No. 3 filed application Annexure P-1 alleging that plaintiff and her husband defrauded defendant No. 3 by obtaining her thumb impressions on various written and blank papers on the pretext of implementing compromise judgment effected in the other suit and defendant No. 3 in fact never filed the written statement in this suit admitting the claim of the plaintiff. Accordingly defendant No. 3 prayed that the said written statement dated 07.03.2011 be allowed to be withdrawn and defendant No. 3 be allowed to file fresh written statement.

Plaintiff by filing reply Annexure P-2 resisted the aforesaid application Annexure P-1.

Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-3 allowed application Annexure P-1. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition.

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

Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there cannot be two written statements by the same defendant and at best, defendant No. 3 may seek amendment of written statement. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Kehar Singh versus Balraj Singh and others reported as 1991 (2) R.R.R. 306, judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Revansiddappa and others versus Siddaramappa reported as 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 773 and judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sameermal Runwal Vs. Prakashchandra Kothari and Others, .

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but the same cannot be accepted in very peculiar facts circumstances of this case. At the outset, it may be noticed that the suit is at initial stage and even issues have not yet been framed. It would be too hyper technical to dismiss the application of defendant No. 3 on the ground that she could amend her written statement and could not file a fresh written statement. The result by amendment would also be the same. Consequently the revisional power is not required to be exercised to set aside impugned order of the trial court because it would be an exercise in futility.

In addition to the aforesaid, there is another very significant feature of this case. Beneficiaries of the suit land are defendants No. 1 and 2. They are already contesting the suit filed by plaintiff-petitioner. Consequently admission or denial of version of the plaintiff by defendant No. 3 is completely irrelevant and ineffective. The said admission can have no effect on rights of defendants No. 1 and 2 or on the merits of their claim. Even in spite of said admission, plaintiff has to prove her claim. Similarly denial of plaintiff''s claim by defendant No. 3 would not debar the plaintiff in any manner from proving her claim. In spite of said denial, defendants have to prove their version by leading evidence. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that impugned order does not affect the rights of plaintiff or defendants No. 1 and 2 in any manner. Consequently the said order is not required to be set aside. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.