DALVIR SINGH Vs. GURDARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 6.8.1998 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barnala, vide which the learned Judge dismissed an application filed by the applicants under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as defendants in the suit. Plaintiff Gurdarshan Singh and others had filed a suit against Ram Singh and 11 others for declaration that they are owners of half share of the suit property along with defendants No. 3 to 12 being co-owners of the property as legal representatives and heirs of the deceased Harjinder Kaur widow of Karam Singh. This suit was instituted in the year 1997. During the pendency of the suit, the applicants filed the aforesaid application averring that Harjinder Kaur alias Harjind Kaur alias Harchand Kaur had executed a will in their favour dated 24.8.1994 and she had bequeathed her entire property including the suit property in their favour. They claimed to be owners in possession of the suit land and as such prayed for being impleaded as defendants in the suit.

(2.) THE application was contested by the defendants. Vide order dated 6.8.1998 the application was dismissed by the learned trial Court, while dismissing the application held as under :-

(3.) THE present suit is pending since 1997. There is no explanation, whatsoever, rendered on record as to why these applicants did not take any effective steps either in the present suit or before the revenue authorities, as noticed. That apart, the applicants have to show that they are necessary parties for determination of the controversy involved in the present suit. Except that, they claim an interest in the property on the strength of the will. Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to show as to what possible interest is likely to be prejudiced within the imitated scope of the present suit. The controversy in the present suit is a very limited one. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the case of Hoshiar Singh v. Gurnam Singh and others, 1991(2) Revenue Law Reporters 217 and Mohan Singh and others v. Angrej Kaur and others, 1997(2) 116 PLR 166 : 1997(3) RCR(Civil) 58 (P&H) to contend that the application ought to have been allowed.