JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

1. The petitioner (Kamlesh Gupta) assails the order dated 21.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Patiala, vide which an application preferred by respondents No.3 and 4 (Amritpal Singh and Ram Kishan), under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the 'CPC'), was allowed.

2. The facts, briefly, are that a suit under Section 92 CPC was filed by respondents No.1 and 2 (Dr. Sham Lal and Drashan Kumar) in which the general public, the present petitioner and her two brothers i.e. respondents No.5 and 6 herein (Dr. Mohinder Pal and Ranbir Pal), were arrayed as parties. The prayer was for the issuance of directions for framing a scheme with regard to management of the trust property, its preservation and application etc.

3. The case set up was that Dr. Jai Gopal was the owner of a large number of properties and was a renowned social worker of Patiala. He was associated with Shri Sanatam Dharam Kumar Sabha (Regd.), Patiala (for short the 'Sabha') and was the chairman of many social organizations, including Cremation Grounds and Bir Dasondhi Ram Apahaj Ashram, Rajpura Road, Patiala, both being run and managed by the Sabha. It was stated that he created a charitable trust in the name of Dr. Jai Gopal Educational Charitable Trust, Patiala vide registered trust deed dated 04.02.2002, which consisted of 95/149 shares out of land measuring about 7 kanals, situated in the revenue estate of Rasulpur Saidan, Tehsil and District Patiala. A school building is also stated to have been constructed by Dr. Jai Gopal, which was later stated to have been dedicated to the trust. It was averred that the land to the extent of 52 ^1/4 shares was separate from the property in which the school had been constructed. A Will dated 03.02.2000 is stated to have been executed by Dr. Jai Gopal. It was also stated that the relations of Dr. Jai Gopal with his children i.e. Kamlesh Gupta and her two brothers were not cordial and they had not served Dr. Jai Gopal even after the death of his wife. It was on account of this, he executed a Will dated 03.02.2000 bequeathing all his property for charity and he named the plaintiffs as trustees.

4. The suit was opposed by Kamlesh Gupta and her brothers by way of written statement (Annexure P-3). During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC (Annexure P-4) was moved by respondents No.3 and 4 namely Amritpal Singh and Ram Kishan. It was averred in the application that since both the parties to the lis were closely related, the possibility of their colluding could not be ruled out, as a result of which they were desirous of becoming parties, being interested in the maintenance of the trust properties. They, therefore, prayed that they be impleaded as co-plaintiffs along with Dr. Sham Lal and Darshan Kumar. This application was opposed by way of a reply filed by the present petitioner Kamlesh Gupta.

5. Vide the impugned order, the application was allowed by the trial Court stating that the plaintiffs had given their no objection to the applicants being impleaded as parties.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petition was filed.

7. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

8. Ms. Munisha Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner strenuously urged that the order is not sustainable. It was submitted that the applicants No.3 and 4 were strangers to the property and to the trust and, therefore, they could not have been impleaded as parties. It was submitted that on account of the application having been allowed, serious prejudice had been caused to the petitioner as strangers could not have been permitted to become parties to the lis. It was submitted that only 52 ^1/4 share is with the petitioner and her brothers and the remaining part is already with the trust. It was submitted that even the Will set up by the applicants is a forged and fabricated Will and the same shall have to be proved by