Darbara Singh (Deceased) Thr His ... vs General Public And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2914 P&H

CR-1901-2021(O&M)                              -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                   CR-1901-2021(O&M)
                                   Date of decision:-7.10.2021

Darbara Singh (since deceased) through his LRs and others

                                                                  ...Petitioners
                     Versus

General Public and others
                                                                 ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN

Present:    Ms.Navreet Dhaliwal, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

                            ****
H.S. MADAAN, J.

Case taken up through video conferencing.

CM-8459-CII-2021

This is an application for impleading legal representative of

Joginder Singh son of Darbara Singh.

Heard.

The application is allowed and legal representatives of

Joginder Singh are ordered to be brought on file. Memo of parties be

taken on record.

CR-1901-2021

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that plaintiff Darbara

Singh (since dead) now represented by his legal representatives had filed a

suit against General Public and others seeking a declaration that Jeewan

Singh son of Mangal Singh (related to the plaintiff as his real uncle), who

was unmarried and issueless having left the house about 30 years earlier

1 of 5

CR-1901-2021(O&M) -2-

had not been heard of and seen for the last more than seven years by

relatives or co-villagers and was presumed to be dead, in that way, the

plaintiff had become absolute owner in possession of the landed property

in the name of Jeewan Singh, situated at village Allia Kalan-I, Tehsil and

District Mansa, as such, he was entitled to get ownership of that land

transferred in his name.

Notice of that suit was given to general public. However,

none from general public appeared to offer a contest. After recording the

ex-parte evidence, learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Mansa vide judgment

dated 28.8.2014 decreed the suit ex-parte.

Subsequently, Sukhdev Singh and nine others claiming

themselves to be legal heirs of Jeewan Singh had filed an application

under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside of that ex-parte judgment and

decree contending that plaintiff was aware of the fact that such applicants

were LRs of Jeewan Singh and as such necessary party in the suit but

even then, he by suppression of material facts and making

misrepresentations without impleading the present applicants got an ex-

parte decree regarding which the applicants came to know on 30.9.2014,

when they got copy of jamabandi from Halqa Patwari and thereafter filed

the present application.

The application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing written

reply.

Issues on merits were framed. The parties were given

adequate opportunities to lead evidence in support of their respective

claims and then vide order dated 8.3.2017, the application was accepted

2 of 5

CR-1901-2021(O&M) -3-

and ex-parte judgment and decree were set aside.

Feeling aggrieved by that order, the LRs of deceased plaintiff

Darbara Singh have approached this Court by way of filing the present

revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists besides

going through the record.

At the very outset, it may be stated that the applicants

claimed to be LRs of Sh.Jeewan Singh deceased regarding whose estate

the plaintiff had brought the suit. He had not impleaded any near relative

of Jeewan Singh in the suit and had arrayed general public as a

respondent. According to applicants, Jeewan Singh had a brother,namely,

Hardit Singh and said Hardit Singh had three sons, namely, Prem Singh,

Bihara Singh and Darbara Singh; all three of them being dead. The

applicants are LRs of Prem Singh and Bihara Singh, in that way, the LRs

of Jeewan Singh also but the plaintiff did not implead them intentionally

just to grab the entire landed property of Jeewan Singh, who was

unmarried and issueless. Such contention deserves serious consideration.

The plaintiff was required to implead the relatives of Jeewan Singh, who

could possibly claim a share in his estate, rather than arraying general

public as respondent and not impleading any of such close relatives of

Jeewan Singh. Although according to the plaintiff, Jeewan Singh had left

home and has not been seen or heard of by persons, who would have

ordinarily done so for the last more than seven years, as such, he was

presumed to be dead and plaintiff was entitled to get landed property of

Jeewan Singh transferred in his name but the applicants being close

3 of 5

CR-1901-2021(O&M) -4-

relatives of Jeewan Singh, they are also in a position to inform as to

whether in fact Jeewan Singh was not seen or heard of for last more than

seven years. The result of passing of decree in favour of Darbara Singh is

that agricultural land of Jeewan Singh stood transferred in his name to the

exclusion of other persons, who might have laid a claim therein being LRs

of Jeewan Singh. The version of applicants needs to be known and

considered and then the dispute can be adjudicated in a proper and

appropriate manner. Though applicants have not been impleaded as

defendants by the plaintiff but they can certainly appeared in the Court

and give their version being members of the general public. Even

otherwise, they can be brought on record as defendants being necessary

parties.

As regards, the judgments i.e. Sunil Poddar and others

Versus Unior Bank of India passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in

Appeal(Civil) 86 of 2008, Indira Versus Union of India passed by

Kerala High Court in W.P. No.18590 of 1999, State of M.P. And others

Versus Kiran Sengar and another passed by Madhya Pradesh High

Court (Gwalior Bench)(DB) in W.P. No.370 of 2002 and Shankereppa

Versus Shivarudrappa and others, 1963 AIR(Mysore) 115, those do not

find application to the present case due to different facts and

circumstances and the context in which such observations had been made.

I find that the impugned order setting aside the ex-parte

judgment and decree, is detailed and well reasoned, which does not suffer

from any illegality or infirmity and no interference therewith is called for

while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of

4 of 5

CR-1901-2021(O&M) -5-

India.

Thus, finding no merit in the civil revision petition, the same

stands dismissed.

07.10.2021                                         (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij                                                   JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking :             Yes/No

Whether reportable              :       Yes/No




                                    5 of 5