Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 461 (PNJ)

Jai Chand v. Mahesh Gupta

2001-04-25

M.L.SINGHAL

body2001
JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - Shri Mahesh Gupta has filed a suit for declaration against Bhushan Parkash, Sarwan Kumar and Ved Parkash. It is Civil Suit No. 633 of 1998. During the pendency of the suit, Bhushan Parkash died and Sarwan Kumar filed an application for bringing on record the LRs of late Bhushan Parkash named Jai Chand Rai, Kailash Chand, Jai Parkash, sons, Smt. Rakesh Devi, widow and Smt. Padma Devi, daughter. 2. Plaintiff Mahesh Gupta filed reply saying that Jai Chand Rai is not the legal representative of Bhushan Parkash as he had since been adopted by Lala Inder Sain son of Shri Mohan Lal. It was alleged by the plaintiff that Jai Chand Rai had ceased to be the son of Shri Bhushan Parkash on account of his transplantation through adoption to Lala Inder Sain son of Shri Mohan Lal. 3. Vide order dated 29.9.1999, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak did not allow the impleading of Jai Chand Rai as LR of Bhushan Parkash. She allowed the impleading of Jai Parkash, Kailash Chand, sons Smt. Raksha Devi, widow and Smt. Padma Devi, daughter of late Bhushan Parkash as LRs. 4. Being not satisfied with the order dated 29.9.1999, Jai Chand Rai has come up in revision to this Court. 5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Jai Chand Rai is also son of late Bhushan Parkash. He ought to have been allowed to be impleaded as one of his LRs, being his son. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Jai Chand Rai was rightly not allowed to be impleaded as the LR of Bhushan Parkash as he (Jai Chand Rai) had filed suit for possession/declaration (Civil Suit No. 11 of 1973/404 of 1978) against Rattan Lal, Lakhi Ram, Puran Chand, Mahesh Chand, Jai Parkash, Kailash Chand, Padma Devi and Bhushan Parkash in which he had described himself as the adopted son of Lala Inder Sain and as the adopted son of Lala Inder Sain. It was submitted that if Jai Chand Rai had himself claimed the properties of Lala Inder Sain, being his adopted son, he stood estopped from claiming that he is still the son of Bhushan Parkash. It was submitted that if Jai Chand Rai had himself claimed the properties of Lala Inder Sain, being his adopted son, he stood estopped from claiming that he is still the son of Bhushan Parkash. It was submitted that Civil Suit No. 11 of 1973/404 of 1978 was decreed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Hansi on 12.10.1981 in which it was held that he was the adopted son of Lala Inder Sain. Suffice it to say, Rattan Lal etc., went in appeal against that judgment and decree dated 12.10.1981 of Sub Judge Ist Class, Hansi. Before Additional District Judge, Hisar, compromise took place. Decree of Sub Judge Ist Class, Hansi became merged into the appellate decree. Finding, that Jai Chand Rai was the adopted son of Lal Inder Sain, was not scrutinised by the appellate Court in Civil Suit No. 11 of 1973/404 of 1978. Therefore, it would not better to bring on record Jai Chand Rai in place of Bhushan Parkash. In Mohinder Kaur and another v. Piara Singh and others, AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana 130. It was held by Full Bench of this court that in no case, a decision under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC, would operate as res-judicata between the same parties or their successors-in-interest or their privies, in a subsequent proceeding even when the said parties had been provided an opportunity to contest the issue and lead the evidence thereon. In essence a decision under Order 22 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code, is only directed to answer an orderly conduct of the proceedings with a view to avoid the delay in the final decision of the suit till the persons claiming to be the representatives of the deceased party get the question of succession settled through a different suit and such a decision does not put an end to the litigation in that regard. It also does not determine any of the issues in controversy in the suit. Besides that it is obvious that such a proceeding is of a very summary nature against the result of which no appeal is provided for. The grant of an opportunity to lead some sort of evidence in support of the claim of being a legal representative of the deceased party would not in any manner change the nature of the proceedings. 6. So, this revision is allowed. The grant of an opportunity to lead some sort of evidence in support of the claim of being a legal representative of the deceased party would not in any manner change the nature of the proceedings. 6. So, this revision is allowed. Jai Chand Rai is ordered to be substituted in place of Bhushan Parkash, since dead, as one of his LRs. This will only be for the purpose of the disposal of Civil Suit No. 633 of 1998, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak. His substitution in place of Bhushan Parkash shall not go beyond it. Rights being claimed by Jai Chand Rai as the natural son of Bhushan Parkash or as the adopted son of Lala Inder Sain shall not be effected by this Order. Revision allowed.