CR No.2045 of 2024 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2045 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Order:24.03.2025 Amar Kaur and another .Petitioners Versus Krishan Singh and others ..Respondents SAO No.85 of 2017(O&M) Amar Kaur and another ..Appellants Versus Daya Singh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners (In CR-2045-2024) for the appellants(in SAO-85-2017) Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate Ms. Vaishali Singla, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4 (in CR-2045-2024) for respondent nos.2 to 5 (in SAO-85-2017) ANIL KSHETARPAL, JUDGE (Oral) 1. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, two connected cases, Civil Revision No.2045 of 2024 and SAO No.85 of 2017, shall stand disposed of with this order. 2. The family tree of the parties is extracted as under:- Jeoni @ Jaswant Kaur wd/o Sant Singh | NARESH KUMAR 2025.04.01 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.2045 of 2024 (O&M) -2- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | Lekh Ram Surjit Kaur Harpal Singh Amar Kaur Bhagwant Kaur (son) (daughter) (son) (daughter) (daughter) | | Daya Singh | from Karnail Kaur | ---------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Krishan Rimple Ranjeet Randhir Singh from Singh from Singh from Singh from Mohinder Mohinder Karnail Karnail Kaur Kaur Kaur Kaur 2. The dispute is with regard to inheritance of property left behind by Smt. Jeoni @ Jaswant Kaur. She allegedly executed a Will on 19.08.1996, bequeathing her property in favour of all her five grand sons, namely, Daya Singh, Krishan Singh, Rimple Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Randhir Singh while excluding her three married daughters from succession. Initially, Krishan Singh, Rimple Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Randhir Singh filed a suit for declaration that they along with Daya Kishan are owners of the property left behind by Smt. Jeoni @ Jaswant Kaur, on 13.09.2010. In this suit, all the three daughters were impleaded as defendant no.1 to 3. The court issued notice to them but they refused to accept the same. Hence, were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.10.2010. Subsequently, Surjit Kaur and Amar Kaur filed an application on 28.10.2010, for setting aside ex-parte proceedings which were set aside on the statement of the counsel representing the plaintiffs subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-, on 23.03.2011. Subsequently, Surjit Kaur and Amar Kaur were granted three adjournments but they neither paid the costs nor filed the written statement. Ultimately,on 28.11.2011, they absented from the proceedings resulting in the court ordering ex-parte proceedings against them. The suit NARESH KUMAR 2025.04.01 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.2045 of 2024 (O&M) -3- was decreed on 23.02.2013. In between the proceedings for sanction of the mutation was pending before the revenue authorities. Three daughters filed writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed in limine while granting liberty to the daughters to file civil suit. The daughters filed a separate civil suit on 17.11.2011, claiming that the Will dated 19.08.1996, is forged. 3. Subsequently, all the three daughters , namely, Surjit Kaur, Amar Kaur and Bhagwant Kaur filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree on 29.05.2013, which has been dismissed by the trial court on 19.03.2018, which in turn has been affirmed by the Appellate Court on 19.01.2024. 4. Civil Revision No.2045 of 2024, has been filed against the concurrent orders passed by the courts below. 5. In the subsequent suit filed on 17.11.2011, written statement was filed, however, inadvertently, the previous litigation was not disclosed. The application for amendment was filed which was dismissed. Subsequently, the issues were framed and the plaintiffs, namely, the three daughters, concluded their evidence. At that stage, an application under Section 10 CPC was filed which has been allowed by the trial court on 25.05.2015. The daughters filed first appeal which has been dismissed on 08.05.2017. 6. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book. 7. The learned counsel representing the appellants (daughters) of Smt. Jeoni @ Jaswant Kaur has submitted that the subsequent suit could not be dismissed under Section 11 CPC because the previous application filed NARESH KUMAR 2025.04.01 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.2045 of 2024 (O&M) -4- by the defendants (four grand sons) for permission to amend was dismissed. He submits that the plea of resjudicata is required to be pleaded and proved. He further submits that an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed within three months of the ex-parte decree which should have been allowed. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents has submitted that initially Surjit Kaur and Amar Kaur filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC which was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/-, however they never paid the amount. Hence, their application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was not maintainable. Moreover, the application was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation because they had knowledge of the proceedings. 9. This court has considered the submissions and analyzed the arguments of the learned counsel representing the parties. 10. It is evident that the appellants/petitioners are not serious in contesting the litigation. Previously, the petitioners/appellants filed application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC which was allowed. However, they neither deposited the cost nor contested the suit. After getting three adjournments, the petitioners themselves absented from the proceedings. Subsequently, Surjeet Kaur and Amar Kaur had joined hands with Bhagwant Kaur in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. It is evident that they were never serious in contesting the litigation. The property left behind by Smt. Jeoni @ Jaswant Kaur is subject matter of both the suits. Once, the previous suit has been decreed and the Will has been declared to have been proved, the petitioners/appellants have no right. The liberty granted by this NARESH KUMAR 2025.04.01 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.2045 of 2024 (O&M) -5- court while dismissing the writ petition in limine would not overrule the judgment and decree which has already been passed against them. 11. Moreover, all the courts have already examined the facts of the case and found that the petitioners/appellants have failed to make out their case. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground to interfere is made out. 13. Dismissed. 14. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of. (ANIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE March 24, 2025 nt Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No NARESH KUMAR 2025.04.01 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document