SURAJ KAUR Vs. SHINGARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Suraj Kaur has filed this revision petition against the order dated 13-3-1970 of Shri Pritpal Singh, Additional District Judge, Ferozepore, whereby she has been precluded from taking part in a litigation relating to the estate of her deceased mother, Smt. Durga Devi. The lady had died on 11-12-1968 during the pendency of an appeal in the Court of the District Judge at Ferozepore. By the impugned order, Suraj Kaur's sister's son Harminder Singh, respondent No. 3, has been ordered to be impleaded as the legal representative of his maternal grandmother. As he alone contests this revision petition, he may hereafter be referred to simply as 'the respondent' in this order.

(2.) I had admitted this revision petition on 14-5-1970 and had directed at the time that further proceedings in the case were to be stayed ad interim. Copies of this stay order had been sent direct to the Additional District Judge by name as well as through the District Judge. The Reader of the Court had received both these copies and had written an order on one of them on 16-5-1970 for the signatures of the Presiding Officer. The other copy is not traceable on the lower Courts' records. In spite of the receipt of these copies of the stay order, the appeal was decided by the Additional District Judge on 20-6-1970. Proceedings are being taken separately, on the administrative side, for the disobedience of this stay order by the Presiding Officer and his staff. It may also be mentioned here that the petitioner had filed transfer applications alleging that respondent's father, who was an Army Officer at the station, wielded some influence with the District Judge and his Additionals and that the petitioner apprehended that she would not get justice at the hands of these officers. The District Judge had, therefore, transferred this case to an Additional. In a transfer application made by Suraj Kaur in the High Court, it had been allege that while transferring the case, the District Judge had threatened her that he would see as to what would happen in the Court of his Additional. The District Judge had admitted in a report called by the High Court that the said military officer was known to him and that the two had been meeting at some official functions but it was naturally denied that the District Judge had threatened Suraj Kaur in the manner alleged. Gurdev Singh, J. had observed, while dismissing the transfer application, that the case had been transferred to an Additional and it could not be believed that the District Judge would be able to influence him. The subsequent events, however, belied this confidence reposed in the judicial officers in the district and it may appear that the petitioner's misgivings were not altogether without any basis.

(3.) THE facts of the case are that Shangara Singh, respondent No. 1, had filed a suit for possession of 81 kanals and 13 marlas of land which he claimed to have purchased from Smt. Durga Devi defendant. This suit had been partially decreed by the trial Court and Shangara Singh plaintiff had filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge at Ferozepore. Durga Devi who was the only respondent in that appeal died on 11-12-1968 and the question of impleading her legal representatives came up. The plaintiff had made an application that the deceased's daughters, Suraj Kaur petitioner and Phool Kaur, mother of the respondent, should be brought on record as the legal representatives. The respondent had, however, filed another application claiming that he was the sole legal representative of Durga Devi by virtue of a will made in his favour on 14-5-1968. Suraj Kaur petitioner had challenged the genuineness of this will and had claimed that the deceased had made a will on 5-7-1968 which had the effect or revoking all earlier wills, if there were any. The contesting parties to the proceedings under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure were, therefore, Suraj Kaur petitioner and Harminder Singh, respondent No. 3.