ANJU DEVI Vs. NIRMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge, in this revision petition, preferred by petitioner -defendant No.2 -Smt.Anju Devi, daughter of Ajit Singh(for brevity "the defendant") is to the impugned order dated 13.06.2012 (Annexure P -3), by virtue of which, the trial Court has accepted composite application(Annexure P -1) filed by Smt.Nirmala wife of Dalel Singh and Kamla wife of Tirth Singh -respondent Nos.1 and 2 -plaintiffs (for short "the plaintiffs"), to implead Savita widow of Jagbir Singh as defendant No.3 in the main civil suit, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and allowed the consequential amendment in the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.

(3.) NOW , the plaintiffs have claimed that after going through the written statement, it revealed that Baljeet Singh(defendant No.1) and his brother Jagbir Singh sons of Ajit Singh were the co -owners in the plot in question to the extent of half share each. Jagbir Singh died intestate on 03.01.2004 and left behind his wife Savita as only Class -1 legal heir. Since, Savita widow of Jagbir Singh became co -owner in the disputed property after the death of her husband, so, the plaintiffs moved an application for impleading her as a party and consequential amendment in the plaint in this relevant connection. The defendants did not deny the fact that Savita is widow of Jagbir Singh. Once, it is prima facie proved on record that Savita was also a co -owner in the plot in dispute, in that eventuality, she is naturally a necessary party to be impleaded as a defendant in the civil suit, to decide the real controversy between the parties. Although, Savita was stated to be a mentally retarded lady, but if that is so, the court will naturally(subsequently) appoint her guardian, as contemplated under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC and reiterated by this Court in case Jarnail Singh and others Versus Naranjan Kaur and others, 2011(4) Civil Court Cases 102. Be that as it may, the plaintiffs cannot legally be debarred from impleading Savita, a co -sharer in the plot in question as a necessary party in the civil suit, as contrary urged on behalf of the defendant. In this manner, the plaintiffs are entitled to consequential amendment in the plaint as well in this relevant context. Moreover, the petitioner -defendant cannot possibly be termed to be aggrieved by the impugned order, in any manner.