Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dilbagh Singh Etc vs Baljit Singh Etc on 18 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150057
XOBJS No.13-C of 2007 in/and
RSA No.4237 of 2006 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on : November 14, 2024
Date of Decision : November 18, 2024
XOBJS No.13-C of 2007 in/and
RSA No.4237 of 2006 (O&M)
Dilbagh Singh and others ... Appellants
Versus
Baljit Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- None for the appellants.
Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Himani Sarin, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 to 3/Cross Objectors.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
There is no representa(on on behalf of the appellants-
defendants. As nobody had put in appearance on behalf of the
appellants on 09.08.2024, no(ce to their counsel was issued for
11.09.2024. On the said adjourned date of 11.09.2024, following order
was passed by this Court:-
"No ce to Sh. B.R. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate who was
represen ng the appellants is received back duly served but there is no
representa on on their behalf.
Though, this appeal can be dismissed in default for want of
prosecu on but learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent
Nos.1 to 3 submits that cross objec ons are also pending. He requests
to fix the date on the cross objec ons.
Adjourned to 14.11.2024."
page no.1 out of 5 pages
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150057
XOBJS No.13-C of 2007 in/and
2. Again on 14.11.2024, nobody put in appearance on
behalf of the appellants. In these circumstances, the appeal, i.e. RSA
No.4237 of 2006 is hereby dismissed in default for want of prosecu(on.
3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3
has pressed for passing order on the cross objec(ons, par(cularly qua
the finding on issue No.3.
4. As the paper book would reveal that one Inder Singh was
owner of the land in dispute, who was succeeded by Ujagar Singh as his
sole legal heir. Gurmit Singh & Mohinder Singh purchased suit property
from Ujagar Singh. On the death of Gurmit Singh, he was succeeded by
plain(ff Nos.1 & 2 (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein). The land was
originally mortgaged with one Jarnail Singh. It was subsequently
mortgaged with Dial Singh S/o Tara Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of
the defendants (appellants herein). The said subsequent mortgagee -
Dial Singh got the land redeemed from Jarnail Singh by filing a suit,
which was decreed and in the execu(on, he got the possession. On the
death of Jarnail Singh, the original mortgagee, he was succeeded by
plain(ffs. A@er purchasing the ownership rights from Ujagar Singh, the
plain(ffs brought the suit for redemp(on of mortgage against the legal
heirs of Dial Singh. Necessary issues were framed. As one of the
objec(on raised by the defendants-appellants was that the suit was bad
for non-joinder of necessary par(es, inasmuch as all the legal
representa(ves of Gurmit Singh had not been impleaded, so issue No.3
was framed as under:-
"3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary par es?
OPD. "
page no.2 out of 5 pages
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150057
XOBJS No.13-C of 2007 in/and
5. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated
26.03.2002. On issue No.3, with which this Court is concerned at the
moment, was decided in favour of the defendants by holding that suit
was bad for non-joinder of necessary par(es, as all the legal
representa(ves of Gurmit Singh had not been impleaded.
6. Plain(ffs filed appeal against dismissal of their suit before
learned Appellate Court. The appeal was accepted and vide judgment
dated 17.11.2006, by seBng aside the judgment & decree of the trial
Court, preliminary decree for redemp(on of the suit land (except Khasra
No.15/1/3 and 10/1) was passed on deposit of ₹7,000/- as mortgage
amount. It was held by the Appellate Court that land falling in Khasra
No.15/1/3 and 10/1 out of the total suit land was not proved to be under
mortgage by the plain(ffs.
7. Not sa(sfied with the above judgment dated 17.11.2006,
defendants filed appeal, which has been dismissed in default for want of
prosecu(on as ordered above.
8. Plain(ffs - respondent to the appeal filed cross objec(ons
against the finding on issue No.3 and also qua dismissal of their claim in
respect of Khasra No.15/1/3 and 10/1.
9. However, before this Court, learned Senior counsel for
cross-objectors has pressed for disposing of the cross objec(ons only
qua the finding on issue No.3.
10. Having considered submissions of learned Senior counsel for
the cross objec(ons/plain(ffs, I find merit in the same. The suit property
had been purchased by Gurmit Singh & Mohinder Singh from Ujagar
Singh. On the death of Gurmit Singh, two of his legal heirs were
page no.3 out of 5 pages
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150057
XOBJS No.13-C of 2007 in/and
impleaded as plain(ffs. As per the conten(on of learned Senior counsel,
no evidence was produced that Gurmit Singh had le@ behind any other
legal heir. It is also the conten(on that even if it be assumed that there
was any other legal heir of Gurmit Singh, the suit was s(ll not bad for
non-joinder of the necessary par(es, inasmuch as the estate of Gurmit
Singh was duly represented by his two legal representa(ves. Learned
Senior counsel further contends that in view of the provisions of Order 1
Rule 9 CPC, no suit can be defeated by reason of mis-joinder or non-
joinder of the par(es and that Court is required to deal with the maGer
in controversy so far as the rights and interest of the par(es actually
before it are concerned, unless it is found that suit is bad for non-joinder
of necessary par(es. It is argued that estate of Gurmit Singh being duly
represented through two of the LRs, so other legal heirs, if any were not
necessary party, in whose absence, suit could not have been decreed.
Learned Senior counsel refers "Mahabir Prasad v. Jage Ram and
others", AIR 1971 Supreme Court 742.
11. I agree with the submissions made by learned Senior
counsel. The suit property had been purchased by Gurmit Singh &
Mohinder Singh from Ujagar Singh. Gurmit Singh through his legal
representa(ves alongwith other filed the suit seeking re-demp(on. Even
if any other legal heir of deceased - Gurmit Singh did not join the
proceedings seeking redemp(on, suit cannot be said to be bad for non-
joinder of necessary par(es. As such, the finding of the trial Court, as
upheld by the First Appellate Court on Issue No.3, cannot be sustained
and is hereby reversed. Said issue is decided against the defendants-
appellants. The cross objec(ons are allowed accordingly to the aforesaid
extent.
page no.4 out of 5 pages
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150057
XOBJS No.13-C of 2007 in/and
Disposed of accordingly.
November 18, 2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
sarita JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
page no.5 out of 5 pages
5 of 5
