VIPAN KUMAR Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision petition is directed against the orders dated 18.8.2009 and 19.9.2009, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby application for transposing legal representatives of defendant No. 1 as plaintiffs has been allowed and they have been allowed to amend the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. According to him, trial court has gravely erred in allowing the application for transposing the legal representatives of defendant No. 1 as co -plaintiffs and for amendment of plaint. According to him, no ground was made out to accept this prayer.

(2.) PLEA has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. According to him, after death of defendant No. 1, applicants had every right to be impleaded and be transposed as co -plaintiffs.

(3.) IT appears that a suit was filed by plaintiffs seeking declaration to the effect that sale -deed dated 5.6.1996 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 in respect of a residential house, was null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. They also sought permanent injunction to restrain defendant No. 2 from demolishing any part of the suit property. Plea was resisted by defendant No. 2 who stated that suit property was owned and possessed by defendant Lal Chand. Being exclusive owner, he was competent to transfer the same in the name of defendant No. 2. During the pendency of proceedings, names of plaintiffs No. 1 & 2 were deleted from the array of parties as there was no power of attorney on their behalf. Legal representatives of plaintiff Krishan Baldev made a statement before the court on 18.5.2009 that they did not want to proceed with the suit. Defendant No. 1 having died, his legal heirs namely, Sanjiv Kumar and Nirmala Devi moved instant application for being transposed as plaintiffs as they apprehended that plaintiffs may not pursue the suit and genuineness of sale -deed dated 5.6.1996 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 may never be tested. As the original plaintiffs abandoned their claim and legal representatives of defendant No. 1 alleged that sale -deed dated 5.6.1996 was result of collusion between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, the trial court accepted the plea for transposing them (respondents No. 1 & 2) as co -plaintiffs. I find no infirmity with the orders passed. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, trial court has rightly accepted the plea for transposition and amendment of plaint. There is no ground to interfere in revisional jurisdiction of this court. Dismissed.