CR-5227-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 165 CR-5227-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.07.2026 Mamta Devi .… Petitioner Versus Raghuvir Singh and others .… Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER ***** Present: Mr. Akun Sheemar, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL) 1. Prayer in the present civil revision petition is for setting aside order dated 18.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dasuya, whereby an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, has been partly rejected. 2. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for separate possession/ partition by metes and bounds in respect of land measuring 1 kanal 2 marla situated within the abadi of village Argowal, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. Some of the defendants in the suit filed their written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed application dated 06.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) for impleading the legal representatives of deceased defendants Davinder Kumar and Rajinder Kumar. It is worth noticing that Davinder Kumar and Rajinder Kumar are the real brothers of DINESH 2026.07.17 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5227-2026 (O&M) -2- the deceased husband of the present petitioner (Mamta Devi), namely Ravinder Kumar. In the aforesaid application dated 06.02.2025, the petitioner averred that defendant Davinder Kumar was survived by Sunita Devi and Nitin and similarly, even defendant Rajinder Kumar was stated to have died unmarried and issue-less and therefore, was represented by Sunita Devi and Nitin. The said application filed by the petitioner for impleading the legal representatives of deceased Davinder Kumar and Rajinder Kumar came to be allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 20.09.2025 (Annexure P-4), which reads as under:- “Heard. On the application for impleading the Lrs of defendant no. 13 Davinder Kumar and defendant no. 14 Rajinder Kumar both sons of Karam Chand son of Dhannu. Reply to the application not filed since 06-02-2025. Accordingly, defence of respondent qua filing reply stands struck off. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that defendant no. 13 Davinder Singh died during pendency leaving behind his Lrs ie (a) Sunita Devi (Wife) and (b) Nitin (son) and defendant no. 14 Rajinder Kumar died during pendency of the present suit unmarried and issueless and his Lrs ie (a) Sunita Devi (sister in law) and (b) Nitin (nephew) both residents of village Sheinh Chathial, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshairpur. Heard. Record perused. By way of the present application, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff wants to impleade the Lrs. Of deceased defendant no. 13 Davinder Kumar and deceased defendant no. 14 Rajinder Kumar namely Sunita Rani and Nitin. Therefore, in order to decide the present case in effective manner, I deem it appropriate to allow the present application. Accordingly, in view of the aforementioned discussion, the present application DINESH 2026.07.17 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5227-2026 (O&M) -3- is allowed and Lrs mentioned in the application are hereby impleaded in the present case. Now, to come up on 24-09-2025 for filing amended title.” 3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed application (Annexure P-5) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of plaint and also the memo of parties on 10.03.2026, on the plea that defendant Rajinder Kumar had died on 10.07.2014, whereas one another brother, namely, Parwinder Kumar had died earlier on 21.08.2008. It was stated that defendant Davinder Kumar had been missing since 16.06.2004, however, he was declared dead vide judgment and decree dated 26.05.2017, therefore, at the time of death of Rajinder Kumar on 10.07.2014, it was only Ravinder Kumar (husband of the petitioner-Mamta Devi), who was alive and therefore, he alone inherited the estate of Rajinder Kumar. On the basis of aforesaid plea, the petitioner claimed that the names of Sunita Devi and Nitin be deleted from the array of legal representatives of defendant Rajinder Kumar and the plaintiffs be impleaded as the legal representative of defendant-Rajinder Kumar (deceased). A further prayer was made for transposition of deceased-defendant (Rajinder Kumar) as plaintiff through plaintiffs. 4. The respondents herein opposed the application (Annexure P-5). 5. The learned trial Court, upon consideration of the matter, partly allowed the application (Annexure P-5) vide impugned order dated 18.04.2026 (Annexure P-8), the relevant extract of which, reads as under:- “5. After hearing the counsel for the plaintiff, this court is of the considered view that the purpose and object of Order 6, Rule 17 DINESH 2026.07.17 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5227-2026 (O&M) -4- CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in justification manner. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guide-lines laid down by a various High Courts and Hon’ble apex court of the country. In the present case, the plaintiff sought the amendment in the plaint on the ground that inadvertently Lrs of defendant no. 14 have been wrongly impleaded whereas Rajinder Kumar died on 10.07.2014 and his brother Davinder Kumar has been declared as dead vide judgment and decree dated 26.05.2017. It is further stated that at the time of death of Rajinder Kumar defendant no. 14 only Ravinder Kumar his brother was alive and is the only Lrs of defendant no. 14 and in that ground request to impleade the plaintiff Lrs of Rajinder Kumar and to delete the name of Sunita Devi and Nitin was made. It is also requested that deceased defendant no. 14 be transposed as plaintiff at Sr. 3 through plaintiff no. 1 and 2. Since Davinder Kumar defendant no. 13 who has been declared as dead vide judgment and decree dated 26-05-2017 therefore his Lrs namely Sunita Devi and Nitin are hereby impleaded as party. The plaintiff has also stated that Rajinder Kumar expired on 10.07.2014 therefore Lrs of Rajinder Kumar are also ordered to be impleaded as party of the present case. It is also the stand of the plaintiff that at the time of Rajinder Kumar only pre- deceasor of plaintiffs was alive. Thereafter plaintiffs are the only L.Rs of Ravinder Kumar. This court is not agreed with the submissions of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs themselves has stated that the Davinder Kumar was declared dead vide judgment and decree dated 26-05-2017 which is after the death of Rajinder Kumar. Therefore, the relief qua transposition of defendant no. 14 namely Rajinder Kumar is not granted and his Lrs will be DINESH 2026.07.17 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5227-2026 (O&M) -5- impleaded in the capacity of defendants as Rajinder Kumar was impleaded as defendant by the plaintiff themselves. Accordingly, application under order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with section 151 CPC stands partly allowed.” 6. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition before this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper-book with his able assistance. 8. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show as to how the observations made by the learned trial Court in order dated 18.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) are either illegal or perverse. As per petitioner’s own pleaded case, her husband, namely, Ravinder Kumar, had three brothers, namely, Parwinder Kumar, who was stated to have died on 21.08.2008; Rajinder Kumar, who was stated to have died on 10.07.2014 and Davinder Kumar, who had been missing since 16.06.2004 however, he was subsequently declared dead vide judgment and decree dated 26.05.2017. In view of the aforesaid categoric admission by the petitioner herself, it cannot be taken that at the time of death of Rajinder Kumar on 10.07.2014, it was only Ravinder Kumar (husband of the petitioner-Mamta Devi), who alone survived, as Davinder Kumar was declared dead vide judgment and decree dated 26.05.2017. It is not disputed before this Court that there is only presumption of death in respect of a person, who has not been heard for more than 7 years, however, there is no presumption of ‘exact time of death’ under Section 108 of the Evidence Act (corresponding Section 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). It is well settled that the date of death has DINESH 2026.07.17 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5227-2026 (O&M) -6- to be established on evidence by a person, who claims a right for establishment of which, that fact is essential. In this regard, a reference can be made to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Darshan Singh vs. Gujjar Singh (dead) by LRs, 2002(2) SCC 62. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to controvert the aforesaid legal position. 10. Keeping in view the above discussion, I see no merit in this civil revision and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 11. This order shall not prejudice any of the parties in trial of the suit and, as such, the learned trial court shall decide the suit uninfluenced by any of the observations made herein. 12. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. (HARSH BUNGER) 13.07.2026 JUDGE dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DINESH 2026.07.17 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document