JUDGMENT

Jayant Banerji, J.

Heard Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and Shri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.1.

As is reflected in the previous order dated 27.7.2023 passed by this Court, Shri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had stated that he did not propose to file any counter affidavit as the material on record is sufficient. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, this case is being taken up for consideration and disposal.

2. This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue an appropriate order or direction to set aside the judgment and order dated 2.3.2023 passed by District Judge Varanasi in Civil Revision No. NIL of 2023 Anurag Srivastav v. Smt. Radhika Devi and the order dated 19.1.2023 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.)/Fast Track Court Varanasi in Original Suit No.268 of 2000 Smt. Radhika Devi v. Smt. Usha Devi, rejecting the impleadment application paper no.'99C' filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC.

(ii) Issue an appropriate order or direction to the court below to allow the impleadment application of the petitioner and direct plaintiff/respondent no.1 to impleadment him as defendant in the suit."

3. It appears that a suit No.268 of 2000 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 against the predecessor/mother of the petitioner-applicant and the defendant-respondent No.2 seeking a declaration that will deed dated 14.3.1990 is a void document and that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is the owner of the property in dispute pursuant to the will deed dated 26.2.1992. It appears that on 15.4.2021 the predecessor/mother of the petitioner-applicant died without filing a written statement in the aforesaid suit. It appears that an application paper No. 82 (Ga) was filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 with a prayer that, against the name of the defendant No. 1, the word 'deceased' be mentioned in view of the provision of Order 22, Rule 4 (4) of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908. No objection was filed to that application and, therefore, by means of an order dated 21.2.2002, the application No. 82 (Ga) was allowed.

4. Thereafter, an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC read with section 151 CPC dated 1.12.2022 was filed by the petitioner-applicant. It was mentioned in the application that the deceased was the mother of the petitioner-applicant, and the petitioner is the sole heir of the deceased. It was also mentioned in the application that on 29.11.2022, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, alongwith some other persons, came to the house of the petitioner-applicant and started threatening that he would be evicted. Thereafter, the petitioner-applicant contacted an advocate and came to know for the first time that an unregistered will deed had been set up by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 with regard to the property in dispute and on that basis is seeking eviction of the petitioner-applicant.

5. It was stated that the petitioner-applicant is the co-owner of the property in dispute and is in uninterrupted possession of the sale deed. It was, therefore, stated that as the owner of the property in dispute, he is a necessary party, and accordingly, an impleadment was sought. An objection was filed to the aforesaid application in which it was stated that the suit was proceeding ex-parte since 9.10.2001. It was stated that under the provisions of Order 22, Rule 4 (4), under the order of the court the word 'deceased' has been recorded against the name of the defendant No.1. That the application for impleadment has been filed only to harass the plaintiff and the case is fixed for ex-pa