Rupinder Kaur v. Binder Singh & Anr.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. N.K.Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.R.Dhawan, Advocate for respondent No. 1. L.N.Mittal, J.(Oral) Rupinder Kaur who is petitioner before the trial court has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing Order dated 19.12.2011 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga (exercising power of District Judge as Guardian judge) thereby allowing application (Annexure P-2) moved by Binder Singh respondent No. 1 herein under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as party to the petition which has been instituted by petitioner Rupinder Kaur against the general public under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with Section 29 of the Guardian of Wards Act for permission to sell the land of her minor daughters Civil Revision No. 1080 of 2012 -2- Tamrin Kaur and Balrin Kaur. Respondent No. 1 herein is paternal uncle of the minors. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No. 1 is in illegal possession of the land belonging to the minors and is not paying anything to them and therefore, he has no right to contest the petition filed by the petitioner. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that petitioner has performed second marriage and she would utilise the sale consideration of the land of the minors for herself, thereby adversely affecting the interest of the minors. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is not within the scope of this revision petition to adjudicate upon the allegations and counter allegations of petitioner and respondent No.

On the contrary, petitioner is seeking permission to sell the land of her minor daughters. Respondent No. 1 is paternal uncle of the minors. Consequently, respondent No. 1 is proper and necessary party to the petition because he also professes to protect the interest of the minors. Making general public as respondent would rather mean that anybody can come and seek to be impleaded as party to the petition. In the instant case, respondent No. 1 is not a stranger but he is real paternal uncle of the minors. Consequently, it is apparent that respondent No. 1 has rightly been ordered to be impleaded as party to the petition by the trial court. Civil Revision No. 1080 of 2012 -3- For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The instant revision petition is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 21st September, 2012 Shivani Kaushik [L.N.MITTAL] JUDGE