JASWANT Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Miscellaneous No. 2454 of 1992 in Civil Writ Petition No. 13804 of 91 and Civil Miscellaneous No. 2457 of 1992 in Civil Writ Petition No. 13806 of 1991 as common questions of fact are involved in both the applications. The facts, however, have been extracted from Civil Misc. No. 2454 of 1992.

(2.) The petitioner in the main Writ Petition seeks quashing of the orders dt. Nov. 16, 1979, Mar. 3, 1981, Mar. 24, 1989 and Aug. 30, 1990 which have been passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner respectively vide which application of Ladhu Ram and Kansi Ram sons of Mam Raj for purchase of land of the petitioner who is stated to be a big land owner was allowed under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. It is during the pendency of the Writ Petition challenging the orders aforesaid that the present application under O. 1, R. 10 of the Civil P.C. has been filed so as to implead Dalip Singh, Bhup Singh, Mahabir and Ram Chander sons of Kansi Ram as also Sruji Devi widow of Kansi Ram as also Bimla, Parvati and Leela Wati daughters of Kansi Ram as party (respondents) to the Writ Petition. In the other Civil Miscellaneous, also, the prayer is to implead the same very persons as respondents. The case of the petitioner-applicant is that the legal representatives of Kansi Ram could not be brought on record earlier as their names did not appear in the copy of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner and as such the mistake was inadvertent and bona fide.

(3.) The applications have been hotly contested by respondents Nos. 5 to 8. By way of preliminary objection, it is stated that application for such a relief i.e. to add legal representatives of a person who had died prior to the institution of the Writ Petition is not permissible under O. 1, R. 10 of the Civil P.C. and that appropriate provision for bringing on record the legal representatives in O. 22, R. 4 of the Civil P.C. It is stated that resort has not been made to O. 22 R. 4 of the Civil P.C. as the applicant knew it fully well that the same would be successfully contested on the plea of limitation. It is further stated that the purchase application was jointly filed by Ladhu Ram, since deceased, the father of answering respondents as also Kansi Ram deceased and that it is the joint order which has been challenged before the Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner as also this Court and inasmuch as the petition filed in this Court as against the heirs of Kansi Ram is a nullity, the same also cannot proceed against the contesting respondents. On merits, it has been pleaded that although the counsel for the answering respondents had brought the factum of death of Kansi Ram to the notice of this Court on Nov. 12, 1991 yet the application was Bled after Feb. 27, 1992 and that too by seeking an adjournment. It is also stated that the petitioner-applicant was well aware of the death of Kansi Ram having occurred. during the pendency of the revision petition before the Commissioner as not only respondent No. 2 but the applicant himself had moved an application on 25/07/1984 for permission to implead one of the sons of Kansi Ram as a party before the said Court. The obvious prayer of the respondents is to dismiss the application.