High Courts(1997) 08 P&H CK 0062

Inderjit vs Yash Pal

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 20 August 1997 · Citation: (1998) 1 ICC 571 : (1997) 4 RCR(Civil) 156

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.C.Garg, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 303 of 1997 (O&M)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 374 words

G.C. Garg, J

1.

Plaintiffpetitioner filed a suit against respondent Yashpal for partition of property as detailed in the suit. One Darshan Kanta daughter of Sham Lal moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking her impleadment as defendant in the suit. Application was opposed. Trial Court, however, by its order dated 12.12.1996 allowed the application by passing the following order :

``Consideration heard. Application U/O 1 Rule 10 is hereby allowed. Now to come up on 4.2.1997 for filing amended plaint."

Hence this revision at the instance of the plaintiff.

2.

In response to notice of motion, defendant has put in appearance.

3.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the trial court has disposed of the application in a totally unsatisfactory manner. What to speak of recording reasons for coming to the conclusion that the application deserves to be allowed, even bare facts have not been noticed as to how and in what circumstances the applicant Darshan Kanta came to move the application and what interest she had in the litigation. The least that was expected from the trial court was to notice the facts and then pass an appropriate order allowing or dismissing the application after considering the contentions raised by the parties before it. The impugned order has been passed by the trial Court presided over by Miss Rajwinder Kaur, Civil Judge, Junior Division Amritsar who is now stated to be posted at Patiala. It is hoped that learned Subordinate Judge aforesaid, shall in future pass a speaking order so as to enable the revisional or appellate court to appreciate the background in which the order was passed.

4.

In view of the above, the revision is allowed, order under revision is set aside and the trial court is directed to dispose of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code filed by applicant Darshan Kanta afresh in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the trial court on 22.9.1997. A copy of this order be sent to Miss Rajwinder Kaur, Civil Judge (Junior Division) Patiala for meticulous, compliance of the direction given hereinabove.