SWARAJ SINGH Vs. KAMLENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present appeal, reversal of two orders of learned Single Judge has been sought. Both the orders are dated 28.11.1996. One order has been passed in OMP No. 144/95 and the other in OMP No.286/95.

(2.) Factual background for the disposal of the appeal may be noticed. Parties are related to each other. They are the legal heirs of one Kalyan Singh, who made a Will. On his death, appellant approached the Revenue Officer concerned for attestation of mutation on the basis of disposition made in the Will. Will was contested by the respondents before the Revenue Officer. Parties were directed by the Revenue Officer to get the title determined from Civil Court. This order was passed by the Revenue Officer on 16.3.1988. Soon after the passing of that order, a Civil Suit No.12/1989 was instituted in the Court of Sub Judge, Paonta Sahib. In the suit, all the legal heirs of late Kalyan Singh were impleaded. Learned Sub Judge, vide order dated 17.9.1994, ordered that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff, as the value of the subject matter was Rs.6,75,000/-, but the upper limit of his pecuniary jurisdiction was Rs.2,00,000/- and, therefore, he did not have the jurisdiction. Consequently, the plaint alongwith a copy of the said order dated 17.9.1994 was returned to the appellant-plaintiff.

(3.) It appears that the appellant-plaintiff contacted a lawyer, namely Chhabil Dass, Advocate, at Shimla, soon after the passing of the aforesaid order. A fresh suit was filed in this Court as the original jurisdiction in matters involving property worth more than Rs.2,00,000/- vested in this Court during those days. That suit was filed on 2.5.1995. In that suit one Anjana was impleaded as one of the defendants, though she had died, when the matter was pending before the Sub Judge and her name had been ordered to be deleted. Satya Devi, another legal heir of deceased Kalyan Singh, had not been impleaded, even though she was a party to the suit before the Sub Judge and was alive at the time of institution of the suit in this Court and is still also alive.