JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

By way of present order, I intend to dispose off two revision petitions directed against order dated 19.12.2013 passed by Executing Court whereby applications filed by Balwinder Kaur and Jaspal Kaur & Milanveer Singh, under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking impleadment, have been decided.

2. The issue relates to execution of a decree of specific performance in a suit instituted at the behest of one Gursharan Singh. Suit filed by Gursharan Singh was decreed by this Court in RSA No.1118 of 1999 vide judgment dated 11.08.2009. During the pendency of the Regular Second Appeal, Gursharan Singh died on 09.06.2004. His daughter Deep Shikha was impleaded as his legal heir. Deepshikha was represented through special power of attorney namely Jaswinder Singh. Execution has been filed by Balpreet Singh and Johnpreet Singh, who claim themselves to be assignees of the decree under Deepshikha daughter and LR of decree holder Gursharan Singh.

4. During the pendency of the execution, two sets of applications were filed seeking impleadment as legal heirs of decree-holder. One application was filed by Balwinder Kaur sister of Gursharan Singh, who claimed to be beneficiary under Gursharan Singh propounding registered Will dated 30.10.2001. The other application has been filed by Jaspal Kaur and her minor son namely Milanveer Singh. Jaspal Kaur claims to be legally wedded wife of Gursharan Singh and that he fathered Milanveer Singh. The said two applications have been decided by impugned order. Application filed by Balwinder Kaur, who claims to be beneficiary under Gursharan Singh on the basis of registered Will, stands declined. Application filed by Jaspal Kaur and Milanveer Singh stands allowed and they have been ordered to be impleaded as legal heirs of Gursharan Singh to the extent of their share.

5. Civil Revision No.1354 of 2014 is at the behest of Balwinder Kaur, who is aggrieved of dismissal of her application.

6. Civil Revision No.2538 of 2014 is at the best of Balpreet Singh and Johnpreet Singh, who claim themselves to be assignees of the decree challenging impleadment of Jaspal Kaur and Milanveer Singh.

7. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate while assailing the impugned order submits that registered Will has been wrongly ignored by the Executing Court merely for want of probate. She submits that there is no requirement of probate order. The Court should have accepted the registered Will as the scope under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC is merely summary in nature. The applicant was claiming under decree-holder. In terms of the mandate of Section 47 CPC, the issue was to be determined by the Executing Court. Executing Court having failed to discharge its statutory obligation, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

8. Mr. Tejinder Bir Singh, Advocate, counsel representing the petitioners in CR No.2538 of 2014, has attacked the order claiming that Trial Court erred in allowing the application filed by Jaspal Kaur and her minor son Milanveer Singh referring to certain admissions whereas there is no admission on record. He thus submits that the Executing Court totally misread the record which led to perverse findings and thus the impugned order cannot be sustained.

9. Per contra, Mr. Joshi submits that even if Balpreet Singh and Johnpreet Singh are held to be assignees, they shall remain assignees only to the extent of share of Deepshikha. Deepshikha will only succeed to certain share. Her right is not to the exclusion of Jaspal Kaur and Milanveer Singh. There is a marriage certificate on record showing that Jaspal Kaur was legally wedded wife of Gursharan Singh. The minor son Milanveer Singh was born from lions of Gursharan Singh. Thus, both of them are entitled to succeed to the decree in favour of Gursharan Singh. He further submits that the copy of mutation No.846 w.r.t. exchange of land, dated 13.06.2002 was also placed on record which reveals that Deep Shikha along with Milanveer Singh were mentioned as children of