Dismissed

Ravinder Kumar v. Ramphal and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 May 2012CR/3333/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a challenge against an order allowing the impleadment of legal representatives in a suit for declaration of ownership, the High Court held that a defendant claiming sole succession cannot oppose the impleadment of others. The court affirmed that the plaintiff decides against whom to contest the suit.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed, affirming the lower court order allowing impleadment.

Ravinder Kumar Vs Ramphal and Anr. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 3333 of 2012

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 3333 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 29.5.2012

Ravinder

..... Petitioner

Ramphal and another

..... Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶12

Present: Mr. Wazir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶14

Challenge in the present petition filed by defendant no. 2 in the suit filed by respondent no. 1 is to the order dated 9.5.2012 passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by the plaintiff seeking to implead the legal representatives of deceased Tek Chand, was allowed.

¶15

The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff claiming himself to be the owner of the suit land.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by the plaintiff could not be allowed by the learned court below for the reason that the petitioner was the only legal representative of deceased Tek Chand. He was adopted by him. He was the class-I heir, whereas the legal representatives, who have now been impleaded are not the class-I heirs, even if the averments made in the application considered. Accordingly, the application deserved to be dismissed.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The petitioner being one of the defendants in the suit cannot be said to be aggrieved against the parties impleaded in the suit. The plaintiff being the dominous litus has to decide as to against whom he wants to contest the suit. Merely claiming himself to be the adopted son of deceased Tek Chand, he cannot plead that other legal

¶18

Civil Revision No. 3333 of 2012

¶19

(2)

¶20

representatives, who according to the petitioner may be of class-II, should not be impleaded as defendants in the suit.

¶21

For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in passing the impugned order. The present petition is dismissed.

¶22

29.5.2012 vs.

¶23

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

Ravinder Kumar v. Ramphal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Kumar v. Ramphal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Sushil Kumar

Kailasho Rani Vs Naranjan Nath

Jaswinder Singh and Other Vs Amarjit Singh

Jai Singh Vs Bhupinder Singh

Punsup Vs M/S Manohar Lal Ajay Kumar

Gurdev Singh Vs Mangta and Ors.