KAMALA DEVI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The present writ petition has been filed against an order passed by the Revisional Court by which the appeal filed by the petitioner which was allowed, the order has been set aside. It appears that the property belongs to one Nem Pal Singh. The petitioner is the widow of Nem Pal Singh. Nem Pal Singh was having one son named Vakesh. He died during the life time of Nem Pal Singh leaving behind his widow Smt. Kamlesh and Km. Sonika, daughter. It appears that a will was executed in favour of respondents no. 2 and 3 and on that basis the names were recorded. When the petitioner came to know, she filed an appeal. The appellate court after considering the relevant record, has come to the conclusion that the basis of claiming the right between the parties is a will. Admittedly the petitioner as well as respondent no. 3 being the widow of the son of Nem Pal Singh has a right to inherit the property in equal share. Admittedly the respondent filed a suit. The suit was decreed ex-parte without notice to the petitioner. When the petitioner came to know, she filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. which is still pending for consideration and has not yet been decided. An application was filed before the Tehsildar for mutating the name which was decided on 5.2.2004 recording the name of all the persons. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed an appeal. The appeal was allowed. Respondents no. 2 and 3 aggrieved by the said order filed a revision. The revision was allowed and the second revision filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue has been dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition. From the record it is clear that the suit on the basis of claiming their rights between the parties on the basis of will is still pending. Therefore, in my opinion, if the names are directed to be deleted or recorded of any of the parties, that will not accrue a right or title to the petitioner or to the respondents. Therefore, in my opinion, it will be appropriate that the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 CPC may be directed to be decided on the merit within a specific period. In such circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of finally directing the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hasanpur, District J.P. Nagar to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte order passed in the said suit on merit after affording full opportunity to the parties within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. It is also made clear that if the application filed by the petitioner is allowed, the suit itself be decided on merit within 3 months thereafter. Till the disposal of the application filed by the petitioner, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo as on today. No order is passed as to costs.