Ram Chand Gupta, J.

1. The present revision petition has been fiied under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing/setting aside order dated 17.7.2010, Annexure PI, vide which prayer of petitioner for impleading him as a parry to the suit filed by respondent No.l against respondents No.2 and 3 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the Code) has been dismissed by learned trial Court.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

3. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was filed by respondent No.l against respondents No.2 and 3 on the brief allegations that earlier Nanda s/o Aad Ram was owner in possession of the property in dispute and after his death Udey Chand and Siri Chand inherited the same. Udey Chand had no son. He died before coming into force Hindu Succession Act and hence, after his death his widow, Smt. Hukam Kaur succeeded to the entire estate of Udey Chand being a limited owner and Smt. Prem Kaur did not inherit any share in the property of Udey Chand. It is further averred that after coming into force Hindu Succession Act, Hukam Kaur became absolute owner of the entire estate of Udey Chand and vide a gift deed gifted her entire share of agricuitural land as well as village immovable property through registered gift deed dated 6.2.1962 in favour of Prem Kaur-plaintiff and mutation No.3055 was also sanctioned on 12.10.1962 in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, since then plaintiff has been continuing as owner in possession of the entire estate of Udey Chand, which was inherited by SmtHukarn Kaur, mother of the plaintiff and SmtHukarn Kaur had divested all her rights of the entire estate of Udey Chand in favour of the plaintiff. Further plea of plaintiff is that she had alienated 18K-11M of agricultural land including half of the rights in village immovable property in the houses, gher, plots and manure pits and all other rights in the abadi deh in favour of Ishwar Singh and others, sons of Bhagwana through a registered sale deed No.1763/1 dated 20.8.1973 for a consideration of Rs.25,000/- and remained owner to the extent of half share in the houses, gher, plots and manure pits. Further case of plaintiff is that defendants No.l and 2 got executed a registered sale deed regarding a part of the property in dispute on 6.8.1974 by impersonating Smt. Hukam Kaur, whereas said sale deed was never executed by SmtHukarn Kaur and the said sale deed was not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and hence, this suit for a decree for declaration that the sale-deed dated 6.8.1974 alleged to have been executed by Smt. Hukam Kaur in favour of plaintiff is null and void. Suit was contested by defendants No.l and 2.

4. During pendency of the suit an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code has been filed by present petitioner for impleading him as a party, which has been opposed by respondents-defendants and the same was dismissed by learned trial Court by observing as under:-

"6. The present suit has been filed by Prem Kaur plaintiff against the defendants challenging the registered sale deed No.1691 dated 6.8.1974 alleged to have been executed by Hukam Kaur in favour of defendants No.l and 2 regarding suit property. The said sale deed is marked as Ex.D22 and is available on record. It is a registered document. At the same time, counsel for applicant also produced the copy of the sale deed No.1763/1, dated 20.8.1973 and sale deed No.233, dated 12.5.1967 relied upon by the applicant. The said two sale deeds relied upon by the applicant do not prima facie relate to the suit property as described in para No.6 of the plaint. Since in the present suit sale deed dated 6.8.1974 executed by Hukam Kaur in favour of defendants has been challenged, the applican