IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION)

C.M. NO. /2017
IN
MAT. APP. 1/2011

IN THE MATTER OF :

MANPREET KAUR Appellant

VERSUS

PUSHPINDER SINGH Respondent

REPLY TO THE APPLICATION UNDER

ORDER 1 RULE 10 OF THE CODE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 FILED ON

BEHALF OF THE BROTHER OF THE

DECEASED RESPONDENT NAMELY SH.

BALJINDER SINGH SEEKING

IMPLEADMENT

MOST RESPECTFILLY SHOWETH :

1. That the contents of para-1 are matter of fact and hence it

needs no reply.

2. That the contents of para-2 are matter of fact as well as of

records and hence it needs no reply.

3. That the contents of para-3 are matter of fact as well as of

records and hence it needs no reply.

4. That the contents of para-4 are wrong and denied. It is denied

that appellant and her daughter were inimical and malevolent

towards the respondent during the lifetime of the Respondent

and together made the life of the respondent miserable by

litigating against him. It is submitted here that the petitioner,

Manpreet Kaur, was married with Respondent, Sh. Pushpinder

Singh (Since Deceased) on 09.09.1988 and out of this wedlock

one daughter namely Ms Maneet Kaur was born on

20.02.1989. Due to constant dispute and regular beatings,

Petitioner filed a case initially under section 107/151 Cr.P.C.

but after heaving no option except to adopt the procedure

established by law filed a case under Section 498/A of IPC with

the local police as FIR No. 278/93 against Respondent Sh.

Puspendra Singh but the same was compromised and the FIR

was quashed by the Honble High Court vide its order dated

07.01.1998 in Crl. Misc. (M) No. 2264 of 1996 on the basis of

compromise between the parties and since then they both lived

together till 2006 without any complaint. Then thereafter, the

respondent under the influence of his elder brother filed a suit

for decree of divorce. It is wrong hence denied that the

petitioner and daughter of the respondent are in any collusion

and are conniving anything. Moreover, the petitioner is

 following the procedural obligations of law, as per Section 2 (11)

of C.P.C.

A legal representative ordinarily means a person

who in law represents the estate of a deceased person

or a person on whom the estate devolves on the death

of an individual

Which shall be interpreted under the light of Section 8 Hindu

Succession Act as it defines rights and hierarchy of the persons

who can represent the estate of the deceased person. Hence,

accordingly, the daughter of the respondent was made the

Legal Representative of the Respondent.

5. The contents of para-5 are wage and unjust which are devoid

of any merits. It is submitted in this regard that as per the

compromise statements given by the appellant and the

respondent before the court of Sh it was clear that they

wanted to withdraw the case and wanted to live together which

was further proved by the statement before the Honble Court

itself dated.. To add to this further it is pertinent to mention

here that the judicial decision will only define or block the

rights of the petitioner/appellant under this situation. It is

further submitted that it is the right of the appellant but the

applicant due to his continuous ill intentions want to claim all

the money, benefits and property etc., which belongs to the

respondent (deceased).

6. That the contents of para-6 are wrong hence denied. It is denied

that appellant had any personal vengeance against the

 deceased respondent the averment is baseless and made

without putting mind over the situation by the applicant. It is

submitted that it was applicant who was settling its vengeance

against the appellant all throughout the years and never

stopped the same even after the death of the Respondents

death. It is applicant who never wanted the respondent to stay

close to the appellant as if both appellant and respondent stay

close they will make a good relation and if that happens it will

not help in the success of your ulterior motives of claiming

Respondents share of the property which you are

misappropriating throughout. It is further submitted here that

both Appellant and the respondent had resolved the total issue

and both wanted to live together which was against your

dreams of heaving claim over the belongings of the Respondent.

7. That the contents of the para-7 are wrong and hence denied it

is further stated that these averments made by the applicant

shows the desperation of the applicant to prove wrongfully that

appellant was having a bad behaviour towards the respondent.

It is submitted here that the closeness of appellant and

respondent was bothering applicant all throughout and hence

the applicant made it sure that the relation of appellant and

respondent will never stay peaceful. It is submitted that the

maintains petition of the appellant was after the respondent

instituted a divorce petition against the appellant. It is further

stated that it is a right given by law to appellant to be

maintained by the husband and she only exercised that as

 heaving no other option. It is further stated that application of

maintenance for child shows that the respondent was so

influenced by you that even the respondent knew that the

daughter is his own child then also he was not in such mental

state to pay for his upbringing as a normal child.

8. That contents of para-8 are wrong and denied. It is denied that

applicant is a necessary party. It is submitted that respondent

in the eye of law do not have any standing before the court to

represent respondent as a legal representative when there is a

superior heir in terms of rights has already joined the

proceedings. It is further submitted that the applicant herein

want to give shape to his ulterior motive of fleecing the property

of the respondent. It is submitted that it is a appeal against

divorce decree where during the pendency of the case both

appellant and respondent came to a compromise and wanted

to live together again and under such situation to prove such

points before the court no other person is better than the

impleaded respondent i.e. the daughter. It is submitted that

applicant in order to settle down its personal score want to

harass the appellant and hence by way of this false application

want to create troubles for the appellant.

PRAYER :

It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may

graciously be pleased to dismiss the present application of the

applicant and should not allow the applicant as a necessary

party to the captioned matter.

The Honble court may pass any other and further order/s that

it may deem fit proper in the light of the facts and

circumstances of the case.