SUNIL JOSHI Vs. MAMTA RANI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constituion of India for setting aside the impugned Order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha, vide which, the application moved by the petitioner for impleading himself as plaintiff/legal representative of the deceased -Rajinder Parshad, has been dismissed. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that Rajinder Parshad (now deceased) filed a suit for declaration before the trial Court. He died on 06.07.2010 and respondents No. 1 and 2 moved an application for impleadment as plaintiffs/legal representatives of deceased Rajinder Parshad on the basis of Will dated 15.11.2006. Similarly, the present petitioner also moved an application for impleading him as legal representative of deceased Rajinder Parshad on the basis of Will dated 07.12.2009. However, vide Order dated 12.10.2011, an application of respondents No. 1 and 2 was allowed and the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the second Will nowhere provides that the deceased Rajinder Parshad had earlier cancelled his Will dated 15.11.2006 which was executed in favour of Mamta Rani and Jyoti.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the Order of dismissal of application dated 12.10.2011 on the ground that no distinction can be made between the registered Will and un -registered Will for the purpose of impleadment when both the Wills are yet to pass through litmus test of examination. Learned counsel also submits that different yardstick has been adopted by the trial Court as the application filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 has been allowed, whereas, the application of present petitioner has been dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has not disputed the order passed in the application of respondents No. 1 and 2 but opposes the submission made by the petitioner.