DASRATH KUMAR Vs. JAGJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil revision, under section 115 of CPC, is directed against the impugned order dated 30.07.2016, passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Roorkee, District Haridwar in O.S. No. 11 of 2005, Smt. Darshan Kaur vs Smt. Teji Bai (through legal representatives and others).

(2.) Facts leading to filing of the present revision are that Smt. Darshan Kaur (plaintiff), who was the owner of the suit property (hereinafter referred as property in dispute), initially executed a sale deed dated 07.02.2002 in favour of Smt. Teji Bai (since deceased) and, subsequently, instituted a suit for the cancellation of the sale deed as well as a decree of perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the suit, respondent nos. 1 to 4 herein, namely, Jagjeet Singh, Manjeet Singh, Virendra Singh and Dalveer Singh moved an impleadment application to implead them as defendant in the suit. Initially, the impleadment application, moved by respondent nos. 1 to 4 was rejected by the trial court against which they preferred WPMS No. 1287 of 2005, Jagjeet Singh and ors. vs. Additional District Judge, 1st FTC Roorkee and ors. During the course of the hearing of the aforesaid writ petition, the revisionists herein made a statement that they have no objection, in case respondent nos. 1 to 4 herein impleaded as partydefendants. This Court vide order dated 29.10.2005 disposed of the writ petition with the direction that respondent nos. 1 to 4 be impleaded as party-defendants. Pursuant to order dated 29.10.2005 passed by this court, respondent nos. 1 to 4 were arrayed as defendant nos. 4 to 7 in the suit. They filed written statement and also made counter claim and pleaded that they are also the co-owners of the property in question, therefore, their mother Smt. Darshan Kaur (plaintiff) had no right or authority to sell the property in favour of the mother of the revisionists herein. Smt. Darshan Kaur (plaintiff) also filed her affidavit of examination in chief.

(3.) Revisionists moved an application before the trial court stating therein that the counter claim filed by the defendants for cancellation of sale deed is collusive counter claim in connivance with their mother i.e. Darshan Kaur (plaintiff) therefore defendant nos. 4 to 9 (respondent nos. 1 to 4 and 8 and 9 herein) be directed to cross-examine the plaintiff first and thereafter revisionist be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff.