Manpreet Kaur and Another vs Mohinder Kaur and Others

Gurdev Singh, J.

C.M.No. 29692-CII of 2010

Heard.

This application under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC has been filed for impleading the legal representatives of Harbhajan Kaur-deceased.

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Registry of the Court to do the needful.

C.M. No. 29693-CII of 2010

Heard.

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Civil Revision No. 7526 of 2010

This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs, Manpreet Kaur and Sukhmani Singh, for setting aside the order dated 22.7.2010 passed by Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ludhiana, allowing the application of Jagir Singh-respondent No. 3 for impleading him as defendant No. 2.

Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiffs filed suit for separate possession by way of partition of the property in dispute measuring 216 square yards, situated in Janak Puri, Link Road, Ludhiana, and for permanent injunction restraining Harbhajan Kaur-defendant(since deceased) from alienating, mortgaging or leasing out that property. They based their claim on the sale deed dated 6.5.1998, alleged to have been executed in their favour and the defendant by Jagir Singh -applicant. They pleaded that this property was purchased with the help of joint funds and each of them has 1/3rd share therein.

The claim of the plaintiffs was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the alleged sale deed is null and void and not binding on the rights of her husband, Jagir Singh, who is coming in possession thereof on the basis of the agreement dated 9.7.1985, executed in his favour by Kuldeep Singh and Basant Ram, who had agreed to purchase the same from one Harcharan Singh. In fact, it is Jagir Singh, who is the owner in possession of this property and the suit is bad for his misjoinder. During the pendency of the suit, Jagir Singh filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as defendant No. 2 on the ground that he never sold this property to the plaintiffs and the defendant and that false and frivolous suit has been filed. The plaintiffs filed their reply to that application reiterating therein the facts pleaded by them in the plaint. After going through the records and hearing counsel for the parties, that application was allowed, vide the said impugned order.

I have heard counsel for the petitioners.

It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the suit was filed in the year 2005 and for all this period the applicant remained silent though it was filed against his own wife. The application was filed in the year 2010 and that delay itself is fatal to the applicant. He also submitted that the impleading of the applicant will force the petitioners to fight against the person against whom they do not want to fight.

The application filed by the applicant cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of delay. As already said above, plea has already been taken by his wife, who had been impleaded as defendant, that the sale deed put forward by the plaintiffs is null and void and that the applicant is owner in possession of the land in dispute. She took up the preliminary objection that the suit was bad for his misjoinder. Keeping in view the contentions of the applicant, it can well be said that his presence before the court is necessary before deciding the controversy completely and effectually. The order passed by the Civil Judge(Junior Division) does not suffer from any illegality.

The revision petition is hereby dismissed.