Single judge held that including Khazan Singh as a party was irrelevant as the petitioner only claimed a share of Mange Ram's estate. The revision petition challenging the rejection of the amendment application was dismissed.
Revision petition dismissed; impugned order rejecting amendment application upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R. No.2302 of 2009 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.2302 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 01-02-2010
Bhagwana
.... Petitioner
VERSUS
Krishan & others
.... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .
Present:Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the respondents.
MAHESH GROVER, J (Oral)6.
C.M. No. 9840-CII of 2009
The application is allowed as prayed for.
C.R. No.2302 of 2009
The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.3.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint and memo of parties, was declined.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Courts below has concluded wrongly by observing that Khazan Singh sought to be impleaded as a necessary party, was not a beneficiary under the Will and therefore, he was not required to be
C.R. No.2302 of 2009 (O&M)
-2-
impleaded as a party in the proceedings. He has with reference to the pedigree table, shown on page 4 of the petition, contended that one Sanwalia was having three sons Khazan Singh, Bhagwana and Mange Ram. Out of these three sons Mange Ram died issueless and his share is in question. According to the petitioner, after the death of Mange Ram, Bhagwana and Khazan Singh, who are his brothers, would have succeeded to his estate to the extent of half share each. The respondents, who are sons of Khazan Singh, have set up a Will in their favour allegedly executed by Mange Ram to defeat the rights of the petitioner to the extent of half share of estate of Mange Ram, which was claimed by the petitioner in the civil suit.
It is contended by the petitioner that Khazan Singh is a necessary party to the suit and therefore, is required to be impleaded as party respondent.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that Khazan Singh has nothing to do with the proceedings as the Will was said to have been executed by Mange Ram bequeathing his entire share to the respondents and Khazan Singh has no concern with the estate of Mange Ram. It is further contended that in any eventuality the petitioner is claiming half share of the estate of Mange Ram and is conceding that Khazan Singh is also entitled to half share and the Will, in fact, in favour of the respondents, is bad. He contended that in any eventuality the petitioner is claiming only half share of estate of Mange Ram and
C.R. No.2302 of 2009 (O&M)
-3-
Khazan Singh has nothing to do with the proceedings.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by learned counsel for the respondents is correct.
The petitioner according to his own claim and in the eventuality of his success in the suit, is entitled to half share of the estate of Mange Ram and he has no concern with the estate of Khazan Singh. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, including Khazan Singh, as party respondent is totally irrelevant. As such, the application has been rightly declined by the learned Trial Court even though for reasons other than which have been considered in the instant order.
No ground to interfere. Dismissed.
1st February, 2010. (MAHESH GROVER) Monika JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings required the impleadment of Khazan Singh as a necessary party.
Whether the Trial Court correctly declined the application for amendment of plaint and memo of parties.
Whether grounds are available to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the application for amendment.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhagwana
Krishan & others
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
