High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
KANSHI RAM v. SMT. CHANCHAL KANWAR ETC. - CR-3103-1993  RD-P&H 4 (3 January 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 3103 of 1993.
Date of Decision 18.1.2006
Kanshi Ram ...Petitioner.
Smt. Chanchal Kanwar etc. ...Respondents.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.
Present: Shri B.R. Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Shri H.S. Saini, Advocate, for the respondents.
The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 3.9.1993 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the application filed by the defendant that the suit stands abated, was declined.
Number of co-owners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs continued to be owner and in possession of the land in dispute. It was pointed out that plaintiff no.1 has died during the pendency of the suit, whereas plaintiff no. 2 has died a day prior to the filing of the suit and, therefore, the suit has abated.
C.R. No 3103 of 1993 (2)
It has been found by the learned trial Court that since the suit by one of the co-owners in respect of declaration of title was maintainable, therefore, even if the legal representatives of all the co- owners are not impleaded, it will not result into abatement of the suit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the application to implead Legal Representatives of the defendants was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the revision against the said order has also been dismissed by this Court on 18.5.1992 and, therefore, the suit has to be dismissed as abated. However, the said argument is not sustainable in law. The question which requires to be examined is whether one of the plaintiffs is competent to seek declaration sought for. Even if one of the plaintiffs is competent to seek the declaration sought for, the suit would require adjudication of the lis between the parties. Admittedly, the other co-owners were competent to seek declaration.
Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.
18.1.2006. (Hemant Gupta)
C.R. No 3103 of 1993 (3)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.