JUDGMENT J:

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. 

The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 15.11.2022 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Court of Civil Judge, (Jr. Divn.), (NRI Cases), Jalandhar, vide which the application filed by one Jaswinder Kaur for impleading her as legal representative of the sole plaintiff (Swaran Kaur) was allowed.

2. Notably, Swaran Kaur is the mother-in-law of the present petitioner/defendant (Sarabjit Kaur). The said Swaran Kaur instituted a suit (Annexure P-5) against the present petitioner/defendant for issuance of a declaration to the effect that she was the exclusive owner in possession of the properties (fully described in the plaint) situated at Village Bal, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, on the basis of a registered Will dated 28.04.2003, executed by her husband, namely, Bhawikhan Singh in her favour. A declaration was also sought that Narinder Pal Singh was not the son of Bhawikhan Singh and was not born from the lawful wedlock of Bhawikhan Singh and the respondent/plaintiff. Other declaration as regards settlement dated 22.05.2004 was also sought. A declaration was sought that the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2012, passed in the case titled as “Sarabjit Kaur v. Swaran Kaur”, had been obtained by fraud. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also prayed for.

3. It has been averred that during the pendency of the suit, Swaran Kaur expired and one Jaswinder Kaur moved an application (Annexure P-6) claiming herself to be the legal representative of said Swaran Kaur on the basis of a Will dated 21.07.2005.

4. The said application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-7).

5. However, the application moved under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC was allowed by way of the impugned order dated 15.11.2022 (Annexure P-1).

6. It has been averred that previously also a suit had been instituted by the petitioner/defendant titled as “Sarabjit Kaur v. Swaran Kaur”, which was decreed on 09.10.2012. Appeal against the said judgment and decree was dismissed on 12.08.2014 and RSA-6349-2015 was also dismissed on 28.04.2015.

7. It has further been averred that under the circumstances, there was no occasion to file the second suit. It is the case of the petitioner that without following the procedure envisaged under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC, the application for impleading Jaswinder Kaur as the legal representative of Swaran Kaur was allowed.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned order, vide which the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC was allowed, is not sustainable. It has been argued that objections had duly been raised by the petitioner/defendant in reply to the application, and that on the basis of an alleged Will, a stranger could not have been impleaded as legal representative of Swaran Kaur. Further, the procedure envisaged under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC ought to have been followed.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order, and that the application for impleading Jaswinder Kaur as a legal representative of Swaran Kaur had been allowed only for the purpose of pursuing the suit.

11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

12. Concededly, there is no relation between Swaran Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur. At least, it has not so been stated anywhere. After the death of Swaran Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur moved an application for being impleading as legal representative of Swaran Kaur on the basis of a Will dated 21.07.2005 stated to have been executed by Swaran Kaur in her favour. The said application was opposed by the present petitioner/defendant stating that Jaswinder Kaur was not the legal representative of deceased Swarn Kaur and no Will had been executed by her. Other averments had also been made.

13. The trial Court, however, without considering the matter from the correct perspective,