In this Criminal Revision Petition, the High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's order granting permission to the plaintiff to sue in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, finding no merit in the petitioner's challenge.
Petition dismissed; impugned order allowing permission to sue in representative capacity 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.6779 of 2010 #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R.No.6779 of 2010
Date of Decision: 23.11.2011
Kulwant Kaur
....Petitioner
Versus
Surjit Kaur and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. M.S. Dhami, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate for Mr. Rajiv K. Kapila, Advocate for respondent No.1.
JASWANT SINGH, J
By filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, defendant No.1-petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 17.9.2010 (P.4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dasuya whereby application of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for permission to sue in representative capacity has been allowed.
Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/petitioner No.1 and proforma respondent No.2 from blocking the passage illegally and forcibly as marked with letters G.H.I.J in the site plan as appended with the plaint. During the
C.R.No.6779 of 2010 #2#
pendency of the suit, an application was filed seeking permission to sue in a representative capacity. Upon notice, the same was opposed by the defendants by filing reply. After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court has allowed the same vide the impugned order, hence the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order is wholly erroneous and liable to be set aside as the same is contrary to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent fully supported the impugned order.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal.
It is the specific averment of the plaintiff in her application that disputed plot was purchased by her on behalf of her son Lakhwinder Singh vide registered sale deed dated 2.9.2002 and he is residing abroad and as such cannot pursue the case in person or otherwise. It is also specifically submitted that the plaintiff is the mother of Lakhwinder Singh and care taker of the disputed plot. It is further submitted that the defendants are forcibly blocking the passage to the plot in dispute and plaintiff cannot get the power of attorney from her son Lakhwinder Singh at an early date and as such she wants to pursue the case in a representative capacity.
A perusal of Para 2,3,4 & 5 of the application and that of
C.R.No.6779 of 2010 #3#
the reply clearly reveals that the averment of applicant-plaintiff were simply denied being wrong or incorrect and thus the assertion made in the application are deemed to be perfectly valid and justified to grant leave to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to sue in a representative capacity in Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, which has rightly been done so by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order. Moreover, the defendant-petitioner will have their full right to defend the suit at the appropriate stages and no prejudice is going to be caused to them.
In view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.9.2010 (P.4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dasuya while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Dismissed.
November 23, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the trial Court's order allowing the plaintiff to sue in a representative capacity.
Whether the plaintiff was justified in suing in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC given that the property was purchased on behalf of her son residing abroad.
Whether the impugned order of the lower court permitting representative capacity was erroneous and liable to be set aside.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kulwant Kaur
Surjit Kaur
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
