GURMAIL SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CR No. 220 of 2013

(2.) COUNSEL for the parties have stated that respondents no. 1 to 4 are the only legal representatives of their mother Dalip Kaur respondent no. 5 since deceased. Accordingly, as prayed for by counsel for the parties, respondent nos. 1 to 4 are brought on record as legal representatives of Dalip Kaur respondent no. 5 for the purpose of this revision petition subject to all just exceptions. Office to make necessary correction in the title of the revision petition. Defendant no. 2 -Gurmail Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 8.10.2012 Annexure P/7 passed by the trial court thereby dismissing application Annexure P/6 filed by defendants no. 2 petitioner for permitting him to file his separate written statement.

(3.) DEFENDANT no. 2 has alleged in his application Annexure P/6 that at the time of receiving summons in the suit, both the defendants were residing together and miscellaneous family affairs were being looked after by Prem Singh defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 1 engaged Mr. R.N. Goyal, Advocate as counsel in the suit and also obtained signatures of defendant no. 2 on the vakaltnama. Defendant no. 1 also got prepared joint written statement on behalf of both defendants wherein it was wrongly pleaded that defendant no. 1 is owner in possession of the suit property. Defendant no. 1 played fraud with respondent no. 2 in this regard. Defendant no. 1 claimed to be owner in possession of the suit property and adjoining site. On these averments, defendant no. 2 sought permission to file fresh separate written statement. The aforesaid application has been dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/7 which is under challenge in this revision petition at the hands of defendant no. 2.