Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satinder Kaur vs Atul Kumar And Others on 30 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:059166
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
120 CR-2086-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 30.04.2024
SATINDER KAUR .... Petitioner
VERSUS
ATUL KUMAR & ORS. .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 02.02.2024
(Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Amritsar whereby the application filed by the petitioner for striking out
issues No.7 to 9 which were framed by the Trial Court vide order dated
19.07.2022 was dismissed.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
respondents filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they were owners in
possession of the property as fully described in the plaint. In para No.2 of
the plaint it was averred that about 6 months ago the plaintiffs came to know
that defendants No.1 to 3 had propounded a Will of their father, namely,
Ram Parkash. It was further averred that Ram Parkash died intestate and
after his death the plaintiffs as well as defendant No.1 (respondent No.4
herein) succeeded to his entire estate to the extent of 1/4th each. It was
further the averment that the said Will was absolutely illegal and invalid. It
was further averred that on the basis of the said Will defendant No.3 is
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:059166
120 CR-2086-2024 (O&M) -2-
alleged to have executed a sale deed in favour of defendants No.4 and 5 qua
property as mentioned in Item No.B in the heading of the plaint. Thereafter,
defendants No.4 and 5 executed a power of attorney in favour of defendant
No.8 and also executed sale deed in favour of defendants No.6 and 7
(petitioner herein). On the basis of the pleadings vide order dated 19.07.2022
the following additional issues were framed :
7. Whether the deceased Ram Parkash executed any
Will, if so, its effect ? OPD
8. Whether the defendants No.1 to 3 sold the property
to defendants No.4 and 5 vide alleged sale deed dated
17.07.2009 ? OPD
9. Whether the defendants No.6 and 7 purchased the
property vide alleged sale deed dated 12.03.2013 ? OPD
10. Relief
Subsequently an application was filed under Order 14 Rule 5
read with Section 151 CPC for striking out issues No.7 to 9 on behalf of the
defendant (petitioner herein). The said application was dismissed vide
impugned order dated 02.02.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the said
additional issues would not arise in the present case as the petitioner herein
is a bonafide purchaser and the other defendants, who were his vendors,
have since been proceeded against ex parte.
4. Heard.
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:059166
120 CR-2086-2024 (O&M) -3-
5. In the present case the entire issue, as raised in the plaint, is as
to whether any Will was executed by Ram Parkash in favour of defendants
No.1 to 3 and whether the sale deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of
defendants No.4 and 5 was valid and subsequently the sale deed in favour of
defendant-petitioner was valid. All the sale deeds are under challenge. The
sale deed in favour of defendant-petitioner herein is under challenge on the
ground that the vendors did not have any right, title or interest in the
property and they did not have the right to sell the same. In view of the
pleadings of the parties, which have been placed on the record, I find that the
issues have rightly been framed. No fault can be found with the impugned
order dated 02.02.2024 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner
herein for striking out issues No.7 to 9. There is no illegality or irregularity
in the impugned order.
6. In view of the above, the present revision petition, being devoid
of any merits, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed off.
30.04.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this judgment/order.
