Gurnam Singh Since Deceased Thr Lrs And Ors vs Jaswant Singh And Ors

CR-7972-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
133 CR-7972-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision:27.10.2026
Gurnam Singh (since deceased) through LRs
.… Petitioners
Versus
Jaswant Singh and others
.… Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
*
Present: Ms. Bhavna Kapur, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
*
HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL)
1. Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 10.09.2026
(Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Phagwara.
1.1 In order to ascertain the proceedings conducted before the
learned trial Court, this Court has also downloaded and perused the
interlocutory orders pertaining to the civil suit from the official website of
the District Courts.
2. Briefly, respondent No.1-plaintiff (Jaswant Singh) filed a suit
for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated
25.03.2013 against Gurnam Singh (predecessor-in-interest of the present
petitioners), Gurdev Singh (predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.2) and
DINESH
2026.11.04 14:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7972-2026 (O&M) -2-
respondents No.3 to 5 herein. A relief of permanent injunction was also
sought.
2.1 In the said suit, Gurdev Singh (predecessor-in-interest of
respondent No. 2 herein) was impleaded as defendant No.1, whereas
Gurnam Singh (predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners) was
impleaded as defendant No.2. The present respondents No.3 to 5 were
impleaded as defendants No. 3 to 5 in the suit filed by respondent No.1-
Jaswant Singh.
2.2 In the aforesaid suit, respondent No.1-plaintiff (Jaswant Singh)
sought the following relief:-
“ 13. It is, therefore, prayed that a Decree for possession by
way of Specific Performance of contract/ agreement to sell
dated 25th March 2013 thereby directing the defendant no.1 to
execute proper sale deed of land measuring 16 Kanals being
320/1638 share out of total land measuring 81 Kanals-18
Marlas comprising Khasra Nos.1823/2-7, 1851/8-0, 1859/8-0,
1860/8-0, 1861/8-0, 1862/7-11, 1867/8-0, 1868/8-0, 1871/8-0,
1852/8-0, 1872/1/3-0, 1872/2/5-0, Kita No.12, Khata No.80/100
to 102, alongwith right to Rasta etc. and situated in village
Dhak Jagpalpur, Tehsil Phagwara District Kapurthala for a
total sale consideration of Rs.38,00,000/- after adjusting the
amount of Rs.18,00,000/- already received by defendant No.1 as
earnest money under the above agreement i.e. on actual
payment of Rs.20,00,000/- at the expense of plaintiff.
AND
Decree for Declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 3rd
May 2013 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the
defendants Nos. 2 & 3 bearing Vasika No.610 with regard to
th
sale of land measuring 8 Kanals and sale deeds dated 4
DINESH
2026.11.04 14:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7972-2026 (O&M) -3-
January 2016 in favour of the defendants Nos. 4 & 5 with
regard to land measuring 1 Kanal 1 Marla bearing Vasika
No.3404 and for land measuring 7 Kanals bearing Vasika
No.3403 are null, void, non-est, ineffective as the defendants
No. 2 to 5 are having knowledge of the agreement to sell in
question being resident of same village Jagpalpur, Tehsil
Phagwara, District Kapurthala.
AND
Decree for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants or
anybody else acting on their behalf or their attorney from
alienating, transferring, mortgaging or creating any charge or
of the suit land as detailed above.
AND
In the alternative Decree for Recovery of Rs.36,00,000/- as
detailed below:-
Earnest Money 18,000,00/-
Damages 18,00,000/-
alongwith interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of agreement till
realization, alongwith costs be passed in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendant. Any other relief found just & proper
be also awarded.”
3. In the said suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff (Jaswant
Singh), the present respondents No.3 to 5 appeared, however, no-one
appeared on behalf of Gurdev Singh, accordingly, he was proceeded against
ex parte vide order dated 21.04.2016.
4. Learned trial Court, upon consideration of the matter, decreed
the suit filed by respondent No.1-Jaswant Singh, vide judgment and decree
dated 06.01.2020.
DINESH
2026.11.04 14:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7972-2026 (O&M) -4-
5. It transpires that the legal representatives of Gurdev Singh
(defendant No.1 in the suit) filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for seeking setting aside of the judgment
and decree dated 06.01.2020 against their predecessor-in-interest (Gurdev
Singh), which came to be allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated
22.09.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby the judgment and decree dated
06.01.2020 qua Gurdev Singh was set aside and the suit (CS-93-2016) was
ordered to be restored to its original number.
6. It transpires that when the suit was restored, learned trial Court
issued notices to all the defendants in the suit and even an application was
filed on behalf of the plaintiff (respondent No. 1-Jaswant Singh) for
impleading the legal heirs of Gurnam Singh (defendant No. 2 in the suit),
which came to be allowed vide order dated 01.12.2025 and thereafter, the
matter was listed on various dates for effecting service upon the legal heirs
of Gurnam Singh i.e. the present petitioner, however, when the present
petitioners could not be served through ordinary process, accordingly, they
were ordered to be served through publication in daily newspaper
“ Hindustan Times” .
7. Evidently, the present petitioners appeared before the learned
trial Court through Shri Raman Narang, Advocate, on 25.05.2026, however,
on a subsequent date i.e. 08.07.2026, the present petitioners changed their
counsel and engaged Shri Divyansh Setiya, Advocate, who submitted his
memorandum of appearance and sought time for filing power of attorney as
well as the written statement on behalf of the present petitioners.
DINESH
2026.11.04 14:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7972-2026 (O&M) -5-
7.1 Thereafter, on the next date of hearing i.e. 17.07.2026, Shri
Raman Narang, Advocate, again appeared on behalf of the present
petitioners and sought time for filing power of attorney and the written
statement on behalf of the present petitioners, whereupon the matter was
adjourned. On subsequent dates as well, the matter was adjourned and vide
order dated 10.09.2026, the learned trial Court closed the opportunity of the
present petitioners to file their written statement and struck off their defence.
The relevant extract of the said order reads as under:-
“ The Ld. Counsel for LR’s of defendant no. 2 suffered a
statement before the Court to the effect that LR’s of defendant
no.2 do not want to file any written statement in this present
case, because in the decree dated 06.01.2020 in the present
case, it has been declared that the suit against defendant no.2
Gurnam Singh is nullity and the said order has not been
challenged ever. It is pertinent to mention here that decree was
passed vide judgment and decree dated 06.01.2020 qua
defendants no. 3 to 5 only. At the time of passing judgment and
decree dated 06.01.2020, defendant no.1 was exparte and suit
against defendant no.2 was treated as nullity. It is further
pertinent to mention here that when application under order 9
rule 13 CPC was allowed decree was set aside qua defendant
no.1and after reopening of the case LR’s of defendant no. 2
were impleaded as party but they chose not file written
statement. In view of the statement, so suffered and in term of
order dated 01.09.2026, the opportunity granted to LR’s of
defendant no. 2 to file their written statement is hereby closed
and their defence is struck off.”
8. In the aforementioned circumstances, the present civil revision
has been filed before this Court.
DINESH
2026.11.04 14:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7972-2026 (O&M) -6-
9. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has
referred to paragraph No.16 of the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2020
(Annexures P-3) to contend that the suit against Gurnam Singh (predecessor-
in-interest of the present petitioners) was treated as a nullity. Therefore, after
the suit was restored on an application being filed by the legal heirs of
Gurdev Singh (defendant No.1 in the suit), the present petitioners could not
have been impleaded as parties to the suit as the said suit was treated as a
nullity qua their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Gurnam Singh.
9.1 No other argument was raised.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
paper book with her able assistance.
11. The above-noticed facts are not disputed before this Court.
12. Evidently, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely,
Gurnam Singh, was impleaded as defendant No.2 in the suit filed by
respondent No. 1-plaintiff (Jaswant Singh). No doubt, the suit was treated as
a nullity qua Gurnam Singh by observing that the suit was filed on
25.02.2016, whereas Gurnam Singh had expired on 10.02.2016, therefore,
since the suit was instituted after the death of Gurnam Singh, accordingly,
the case be treated as a nullity qu a Gurnam Singh. However, learned trial
Court had returned the following findings under issues No. 11-A and 11-B:-
“ Issue No.11-A & 11-B:
24. Onus to prove these issues was on the defendant No.2 to
5. It is abundantly clear from the above discussion that the
defendants No.3 to 5 have miserably failed to prove that they
DINESH
2026.11.04 14:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7972-2026 (O&M) -7-
were the bonafide purchasers as they failed to step into witness
box, they only examined DW3 Harsh Kumar as their Power of
attorney whose testimony does not inspire the confidence of this
Court. On the other hand defendant No.2 Gurnam Singh had
already died on 10.02.2016. Therefore, this Court is of
confirmed opinion that sale deeds executed by defendant No.1
Gurdev Singh in favour of defendants No.2 to 5 are illegal, null
and void. Hence, these issues are decided against the
defendants No.3 to 5 and in favour of plaintiff.”
13. A perusal of the above-extracted finding returned under Issues
No.11-A and 11-B would show that the sale deeds executed by Gurdev
Singh (defendant No.1 in the suit) in favour of Gurnam Singh (predecessor-
in-interest of the present petitioners) and the present respondents No.3 to 5,
were declared illegal, null and void.
14. Subsequently, on an application filed by the legal
representatives of Gurdev Singh (defendant No.1 in the suit) under Order IX
Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking setting aside of the ex parte
judgment and decree dated 06.01.2020, the learned trial Court had restored
the suit, whereupon the plaintiff-Jaswant Singh filed application for
impleading the legal heirs of Gurnam Singh i.e. the present petitioners, as
parties to the suit, which was allowed by the learned trial Court, vide order
dated 01.12.2025.
15. Concededly, the petitioners have not raised any challenge to the
said order dated 01.12.2025, wherein they were impleaded as the legal heirs
of Gurnam Singh (since deceased) and since their impleadment, the
DINESH
2026.11.04 14:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7972-2026 (O&M) -8-
proceedings in the suit have continued and the petitioners have been
appearing before the learned trial Court.
16. Furthermore, it is noticeable that Gurnam Singh (predecessor-
in-interest of the present petitioners) was not the sole defendant in the suit
and the suit still survived against the other defendants.
17. Here it would be apposite to refer to a judgment rendered by
this Court in case of Karam Kaur (died) v. Dalip Singh (dead) through
LRs, 2001 (4) RCR (Civil) 361 , wherein it has been observed thus:-
“ "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that
Dalip Singh was dead since before the date of the institution of
the suit but it is equally true that in this case, Dalip Singh was
not the sole defendant but Ranjit Singh was also a defendant
with him and if Dalip Singh were the sole defendant, the suit
filed by Karam Kaur would have been a nullity. It is submitted
that this suit could not have been viewed as nullity when Ranjit
Singh was a defendant in the suit. So far as the legal
representatives/heir of Dalip Singh deceased is concerned, the
suit shall be deemed to have been instituted against him/her
when the application for bringing or record his LR/heir was
filed in the trial Court. It is submitted that the judgment
reported as Cuttak Municipality v. Shyamsunder Behera, AIR
1977 Orissa 137 , where it was held that "suit against dead
person is a nullity" is not applicable to the facts of this case as
here Dalip Singh and Ranjit Singh sons of Anokh Singh both
were defendants in the suit whereas in AIR 1977 Orissa 137
(supra) in S.C.C. Suit No. 106 of 1974 filed by Cuttack
Municipality Chintamoni Behera was the sole defendant and in
S.C.C. Suit No. 107 of 1074 filed by Cuttack Municipality,
Kartik Chandra Mitra was the sole defendant, Chintamoni
DINESH
2026.11.04 14:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7972-2026 (O&M) -9-
Behera and Kartik Chandra Mitra both were dead prior to the
institution of the suit. It was in these circumstances that the
High Court of Orissa took the view that suit against dead
person was nullity and prayer of the Municipality for bringing
on record the Lrs of the deceased-defendants could not be
entertained. A Division Bench of Mysore High Court in C.
Muttu v. Bharth Match Works, Sivakasi, AIR 1964 Mysore
293 , held that "In suit filed against a dead person, a Court has
no jurisdiction to grant an application under Order 1, Rule 10
and under Order 22 Rule 4 and 9 or do any other act authorised
by the Civil Procedure Code, as the suit filed against a dead
person is a nullity. Their Lordships clearly laid down that no
substitution can be permitted in a case where there was a sole
defendant, but when there are more defendants than one and
one of them was dead when the suit was filed, the legal
representatives of the deceased defendant can be brought on
record subject to any question of limitation that may be raised
by the legal representatives of the deceased person who were
brought on record as the suit had been validly presented in so
far as the living defendants are concerned". It is submitted that
LR of late Dalip Singh defendant should have been allowed to
be brought on record. Qua the LR of Dalip Singh defendant, the
suit could be deemed to have been instituted on the day when
the plaintiff had made an application for his LR being brought
on record.”
18. A perusal of the observations made in the case of Karam Kaur
(supra) would clearly show that no substitution can be permitted in case
where there was a sole defendant but when there are more defendants than
one and one of them was dead when the suit was filed, the legal
representatives of the deceased defendant can be brought on record.
DINESH
2026.11.04 14:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7972-2026 (O&M) -10-
19. At this stage, a specific query was put to learned counsel for the
petitioners as to whether the petitioners want to file their written statement,
subject to payment of appropriate costs, however, learned counsel for the
petitioners flatly refused for the same.
20. Keeping in view the above discussion, I see no compelling
reason, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present
proceedings.
21. Resultantly, the present civil revision petition fails and the same
is accordingly, dismissed.
22.               All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed .
(HARSH BUNGER)
27.10.2026 JUDGE
dinesh
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DINESH
2026.11.04 14:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document