IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 286 CR-5431-2023 Date of Decision.:22.04.2025 Mur, Devi Pe,,oner Vs. Sunita and Others Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Ms. Nisha Malik, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana. Ms. Dheerja, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 and 6. Respondent No.7 proceeded ex parte vide order dated 15.11.2023. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) In a suit for declaraon filed by plainff Mur Devi (pe oner herein), an applicaon under Order I Rule 10 CPC was moved so as to implead Kailash Devi widow of Jagmal Singh as one of the defendant. However that applicaon has been dismissed by way of the impugned order dated 21.07.2023, which is assailed before this Court. 2. Learned counsel contends that property in dispute belonged to Shahzada. A8er his death, it was inherited by his two sons Jagmal Singh and Janak Singh and two daughters namely Mur Devi (plainff) and Geeta Devi (proforma defendant). Janak Singh died issueless. Jagmal Singh died and le8 behind his widow Smt. Kailash Devi and three daughters namely Sunita, Archna and Pooja. Plainff claimed right on the basis of inheritance by impleading three daughters of Jagmal Singh as defendant Nos.1 to 3. At that NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.22 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5431-2023 -2- me, plainff was not aware that Kailash Devi was sll alive as at that me plainff was under impression that her counsel was asking about her mother instead of mother of the defendants. 3. Learned counsel concedes the fact that though in the plaint it was menoned that Kailash Devi had expired but points out that even in the wri<en statement which was filed by defendant Nos.1 to 3, they had stated that their mother Kailash Devi had expired and that this fact emerged later on that in fact Kailash Devi was alive. 4. The trial Court has dismissed the applicaon a8er nocing that in the pleadings, Kailash Devi was reported to have died; that case has reached at the fag end inasmuch as both the pares had already led the evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the peon on the similar ground that case had already reached the final stage. He also submits that in case applicaon is allowed, the pleadings would have to be amended. 6. At this, learned counsel for the peoner pointed out that applicaon under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has already been moved which is pending before the trial Court for adjudicaon. 7. Having noced all the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is hereby set aside as it is considered that Kailash Devi, mother of defendant Nos.1 to 3 is also a necessary party to the suit in the absence of whom the adjudicaon of the dispute will not be possible. As such, the trial Court is directed to permit the plainff- peoner to implead Kailash Devi as a defendant to the suit and then proceed further in accordance with law. Disposed of. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE April 22, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.22 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document