BALJINDER SINGH Vs. GURVINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 11.9.1997 passed by Civil Judge (JD) Mansa. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has allowed the application moved by LRs of defendant No. 1 (Parminder Singh) to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff and to lead their evidence.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,11,689/- against four defendants including deceased Parminder Singh in the year 1989. It is an admitted fact that all the defendants filed the joint written statement in the suit. Initially case was fixed for evidence in the year 1991 but thereafter the defendants filed an application for amendment of the written statement which was allowed and accordingly amended written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants. As a result of the amended written statement one issue was re-cast on 27.2.1992 and the case was adjourned to 20.4.1992. Meanwhile defendant Parminder Singh died in the month of March 1992. Copies of the Jimni order which have been re-produced in the grounds of revision show that on 9.6.1992 an application filed by the learned counsel of deceased Parminder Singh for adjournment was allowed to enable him to file an application for bringing on record LRs of Parminder Singh. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed in the year 1994 and all the witnesses produced by the plaintiff were duly cross-examined by the learned counsel of the defendants. Thereafter defendants also examined their witnesses.

(3.) MR . Dhaliwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that under Order 22 Rule 10-A CPC, the contract between the pleader and the deceased party is deemed to subsist. He further submits that admittedly the learned counsel who had been appearing on behalf of deceased Parminder Singh and who was a counsel for other defendants also had cross- examined all the witnesses produced by the plaintiff. He further submits that even the joint written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants. He also submits that under sub-rule 3 of Rule 4 of Order 22 CPC framed by this High Court, in case one of the defendants dies during the pendency of the case, a judgment shall have the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death took place. He, therefore, contends that the LRs of the defendant Parminder Singh cannot be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses who have already been cross-examined by the learned counsel of deceased Parminder Singh. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Smt. Neelam Chauhan v. Madan Gopal, 1989(1) RRR 277.