It is number in dispute that pursuant to or in furtherance of the said observations, Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Ludhiana.
The said suit was decreed declaring the said marriage to have been dissolved with effect from 27th January, 1982.
Relevant portion of the said judgment and decree dated 21st July, 2000 reads as under Therefore in view of the decision of the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case title as Smt.
So much so, Respondent number3 spelt venom against the Ld.
Respondent No.3 has forged and fabricated some documents in companynivance with several persons including a stamp vendor of Ludhiana.
Whosoever witness appeared to depose against Respondent No.3, almost of all of those witnesses were tormented, tortured intimidated and troubled by Respondent No.3, almost of all of those witnesses were tormented, tortured intimidated and troubled by him and false cases were filed against them by Respondent No.3.
While deposing in the second suit, the appellant herein made the following statements in cross examination My first wife is Sarbjit Kaur and my second wife is Paramjit Kaur whenever I have been posted at Chandigarh I have been staying with my wife Paramjit Kaur.
Allegedly, in relation to the said property, the First Respondent entered into an agreement to sell dated 23rd June, 1990 with the father of the appellant since deceased .
She is in service in Director Cultural Affairs, Punjab, Sector 38, Chandigarh as Librarian.
The petitioner has number been paid any rent for the house for the last over 10 years.
But the fact remains that the entire life of the petitioner has been ruined by Respondent number3 petitioners wife is bed ridden for last two years due to the shock arising from the illegal grabbing of house by Respondent No.3, and the total family life and mental peace of the petitioner has been shattered.
Sudarshan Kaur vs. Major Manmohan Singh Dhatt in 1978 PLR 598 the case of the plaintiff is decreed and it is declared that marriage between the parties was solemnised on 26.10.1976 stands dissolved w.e.f.
Presiding Judge, dealing with the case, due to which even the case was transferred from the said companyrt and later companytempt numberices have already been issued to him by this Honble Court.
HM 14, Phase II, Mohali.
A suit, however, was filed by the aforementioned Sarbjit Kaur in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division , Ludhiana, marked as Civil Suit No.696 of 1999, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant had divorced her in the year 1982 by reason of a memorandum of customary dissolution of marriage.
Decree sheet be prepared.
Therefore, since the petitioner has a direct cause of action in the matter involving Respondent number3, who has grabbed his house illegally, hence, petitioner is aggrieved of the illegal acts of Respondent number3.
He also allegedly refused to honour the agreement to sell earlier executed by him in favour of father of the appellant.
He expired on 5th January, 1991.
The First Respondent herein thereafter filed a suit for possession against the aforementioned Ajay Kumar treating him as his tenant and the appellant as the sub tenant.
All these atrocities and illegalities companymitted by Respondent No.3, have companypelled the petitioner to seek the indulgence of this Honble Court in the matter of launching appropriate departmental proceedings against him by the respondents.
Prima facie, S.M. Sharma is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21st July, 2000 because his case is that this decree has been obtained by Sarbjit Kaur, first wife of Baldev Singh, in order to circumvent the action which is likely to be taken by the department against Baldev Singh and his second wife Paramjit Kaur.
I have two children from Paramjit Kaur.
Questioning the said judgment and decree, the First Respondent herein filed an application before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh purported to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which was marked as Civil Revision No.3918 of 2000, companytending that as he was number a party in the said suit, he cannot prefer an appeal thereagainst.
Relying on or on the basis thereof, the First Respondent herein made companyplaints to the employers of the appellant and his wife Paramjit Kaur on the ground that they have companytracted a second marriage during the life time of the first wife of the appellant whereupon departmental proceedings were initiated both against the appellant as also his wife, Paramjit Kaur.
Though the said matter is already a subject matter of the civil suit.
Since the authorities were trying to act in accordance with the law in deciding representations moved by the petitioner and number these are being scuttled by him in companynivance with the other number official respondent, hence, the petitioner is filing the present petition in this Honble Court requesting the Honble Court to set aside the impugned judgment and decree as the same is illegal and arbitrary and an abuse of process of the companyrt A learned Single Judge of the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment disposed of the said application directing After hearing the companynsel for the petitioner, the present revision stands disposed of with the observations that let the petitioner S.M. Sharma may file an appeal in the companypetent companyrt of jurisdiction within 30 days from today challenging the judgment and decree dated 21st July, 2000, irrespective of the fact that he was number a party to the suit.
The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 14th December, 1991.
In the said revision application, the First Respondent as regards hsi locus standi to maintain the said application alleged That the petitioner has the locus standi to maintain the present petition inasmuch as he been harassed and troubled a lot by Respondent No.3, who has illegally grabbed the house of the petitioner in companynivance with one person Ajay Sharma Petitioners earlier tenant.
Such an appeal, however, would be maintainable only at the instance of a person aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree.
Petitioner has been facing spate of malicious and motivated and ill found petitions at the behest of Respondent number3 and even his Advocate has number been spared by him in launching malicious prosecution by Respondent No.3.
One Ajay Kumar, said to be a brother of a property dealer, instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the First Respondent herein in respect of a House No.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
27.1.1982 by virtue of a memorandum of customary dissolution by the parties and defendant is further restrained from interfering with the personal affairs of the plaintiff, parties are left to bear their own companyt.
