BALJIT SINGH VIDIA Vs. MOHINDER KAUR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 03.08.2011 (Annexure P4), whereby the Trial Court has directed the plaintiff to appear in person while exercising the powers under Order 10 Rule 4 CPC, on an application filed by the defendants. The reasoning given by the Trial Court are that the signatures of the plaintiff have been disputed on the plaint and the Vakalatnama and therefore, his personal appearance is required.

(2.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the petitioner filed a suit on 07.10.2010 for declaration against his mother and two sisters, alleging that the Will had been forged by defendants No.1 & 3, to deprive the plaintiff of his share as he was an NRI and permanent resident of Canada. Resultantly, application under Order 10 Rule 4 CPC came to the filed by the defendants on the ground that they had put in appearance on 25.10.2010 and 26.10.2010 and thereafter, on 18.12.2010 but the plaintiff had never put in appearance and therefore, they had an apprehension that the suit was filed by someone else and the plaintiff should come forth in Court. The application was contested on the ground that the same had been done to delay the proceedings.

(3.) The suit had been filed and the counsel is appearing regularly and there is no need to call the plaintiff in person and merely the opinion of the locality members, which is alleged in the application, could not be a ground that the plaintiff could be directed to appear in Court.