Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database

Log in / Register

Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided on: 08.03.2022

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10(2) – Transposition of defendant into plaintiff -- Application by Performa defendant to transpose as a co-plaintiff -- Alleges that the original plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove her case – Dispute in the case is with regard to the validity of the alleged Will executed by the predecessor in interest of the parties -- If it is proved that deceased did not leave behind a testamentary document, then all the Class-I heirs including the petitioner will be entitled to succeed to the property in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Held, valuable rights of the parties including the petitioner are to be adjudicated -- In such circumstances, it becomes incumbent to permit the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their case – Plaintiff does not oppose the prayer -- Petitioner is permitted to be transposed as plaintiff no.2.

(Para 3, 7-9)

www.lawtodaylive.com
Balbir Kaur @ Amarjit Kaur v. Chhinderpal Kaur and others (P&H HC)
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16662 = 2022(1) 317
From the Database of www.lawtodaylive.com
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Before: Anil Kshetarpal, J.
CR No.5138 of 2018(O&M)

Decided on: 08.03.2022
Balbir Kaur @ Amarjit Kaur - Petitioner
Versus
Chhinderpal Kaur and others - Respondents

Present:

Mr. R.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. D.S.Virk, Advocate, for respondent no.1.

Mr. K.S.Brar, Advocate, for respondent no.2 to 7

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10(2) – Transposition of defendant into plaintiff -- Application by Performa defendant to transpose as a co-plaintiff -- Alleges that the original plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove her case – Dispute in the case is with regard to the validity of the alleged Will executed by the predecessor in interest of the parties -- If it is proved that deceased did not leave behind a testamentary document, then all the Class-I heirs including the petitioner will be entitled to succeed to the property in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Held, valuable rights of the parties including the petitioner are to be adjudicated -- In such circumstances, it becomes incumbent to permit the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their case – Plaintiff does not oppose the prayer -- Petitioner is permitted to be transposed as plaintiff no.2.

(Para 3, 7-9)

***

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (ORAL) –

1. The petitioner herein is defendant no.7 in a suit for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that the alleged will dated 12.05.1993 is not executed by late Sh. Karnail Singh.

2. The petitioner was impleaded as a proforma defendant no.7 being daughter of late Sh. Karnail Singh.

3. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the petitioner with a prayer to transpose her as a co-plaintiff. The suit has been filed by Chhinderpal Kaur daughter of Sh. Teja Singh son of late Sh. Karnail Singh. The petitioner alleges that the original plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove her case. The Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner has failed to furnish any explanation with regard to the delay in filing the application.

4. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.

5. The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the application was filed by the petitioner as the original plaintiff was not taking interest in prosecuting her suit properly. He further contends that despite the last opportunity, the original plaintiff did not lead any evidence.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel representing defendants No.2 to 7 contends that the application has been filed only to delay the disposal of the suit.

7. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the validity of the alleged Will executed by late Sh. Karnail Singh, who was the predecessor in interest of the parties. If it is proved that late Sh. Karnail Singh did not leave behind a testamentary document, then all the Class-I heirs including the petitioner will be entitled to succeed to the property in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was for this reason the petitioner was added as a proforma defendant in the suit.

8. It is evident that the valuable rights of the parties including the petitioner are to be adjudicated upon by the Court. In such circumstances, it becomes incumbent to permit the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their case The learned counsel representing the plaintiff does not oppose the prayer.

9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to be transposed as plaintiff no.2, along with Chhinderpal Kaur.

10. It is evident that the suit is pending for nearly last 6 years. Hence, the learned trial court is requested to make sincere endeavour for the expeditious disposal of the suit after granting three opportunities to both the parties to lead evidence to substantiate their case.

11. With these observations, the revision petition is allowed.

12. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.

Petition allowed.

********

www.lawtodaylive.com