RAMESH PRASAD SHARMA Vs. HARI BUX SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the common question of law and the facts and the incident is same, therefore, both the revisions heard together and decided by a common judgment and order.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and the counsel for the respondents. These two revisions have been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 10.7.2002, inter alia, on the ground that ex-parte proceedings were drawn against the revisionist and he was not given any opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his claim. Submission of counsel for the revisionist is that the other brothers of the revisionist were not impleaded as party in spite of the order of the court dated 9.7.1998, but in spite of the aforesaid fact the claim petition was decided ex-parte. He further submits that after the death of the father of the revisionist, the liability is to be shared by all the brothers, whereas the revisionist was only represented and, therefore, the proceedings stood vitiated for non-substitution of the other heirs, who were required to be substituted as provided under law. In absence of proper substitution of the other heirs, the order of the trial court shifting the entire liability upon the shoulders of the revisionist cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.