1. Rule. Mr. Maulik R. Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1.1 – 1.3, Mr. Dhaval Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2 and Mr. Vimal M. Patel, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally.

2. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 30-11-2012, passed by the learned 8th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, below the application at Exh.120, in Special Civil Suit No.518 of 2005, whereby the said application preferred by respondent No.3, a third party, to join him as party- defendant in the Suit, has been allowed.

3. Briefly stated, the facts relevant to the decision of the petition are that the petitioner instituted Special Civil Suit No.518 of 2005, for specific performance, in the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, against deceased Hiraben (present respondent No.1 through legal heirs and defendant No.1 in the Suit). According to the petitioner, the suit land is an HUF property and belonged to deceased Hathibhai Mathurbhai Patel, who had four legal heirs, namely, (1) Diwaliben, widow of the deceased, (2) Manibhai, son of the deceased, (3) Dahyabhai, son of deceased and (4) Somabhai son of the deceased. All the said legal heirs passed away. Deceased Manibhai Hathibhai Patel had two legal heirs, namely, (1) Bai Jiba, wife of the deceased and (2) Bhagabhai, son of the deceased. Both these legal heirs have also expired. Bhagabhai had only one legal heir, that is, his wife Hiraben (original defendant No.1), who expired without leaving behind any heir. According to the petitioner, in relation to the HUF property, only the heirs of deceased Dahyabhai Hathibhai Patel had remained alive, therefore, they are the legal successors of the suit property, as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. The property of deceased Hathibhai Mathurbhai Patel was divided by his heirs and an entry, being Entry No.1503 dated 15.02.1947, was mutated in the Revenue Records. During the pendency of the suit, deceased respondent No.1 Hiraben (defendant No.1) executed a Sale Deed in favour of respondent No.2 (original defendant No.2). An application for amendment was preferred by the petitioner at Exh.25, to make the necessary amendments in the plaint, which was allowed. Original defendant No.1 Hiraben, died on 17.08.2008. Her legal heirs made an application to bring them on record by filing an application at Exh.116, on 07.07.2012. Thereafter, respondent No.3 herein made an application at Exh.120, to join him as party defendant in the suit, on the ground that he is an interested party as a Will has been executed in his favour by deceased Hiraben. Both the applications at Exh.116 and 120 were heard together and decided by a common order, by the Trial Court. By the impugned order dated 30.11.2012, the Trial Court rejected the application at Exh.116 filed by the heirs of deceased Hiraben and allowed the application at Exh.120 filed by respondent No.3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the above-mentioned order, to the extent that it allowed the application at Exh.120, preferred by respondent No.3, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

4. Mr. Devarshi C. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 30-11-2012, passed by the Trial Court, is illegal, unjust and against the provisions of law as the application of the third party, who had no locus standi to file such an application in the Suit on the basis of a Will executed by deceased defendant No.1, has been allowed.

4.1 That in her lifetime, deceased Hiraben had executed a Sale Deed in respect of the Suit property, on 22.11.