The main legal point established in the judgment is the right of impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC and the significance of its application when an adjudication may affect the rights of the person seeking impleadment.

ORDER

1. In 2011, the plaintiff/respondent No.2 had instituted a Suit for declaration of the will dated 17th May, 1995, as to be bad in the eyes of law, as well asthe consequential execution of the sale deed dated 8th January, 2010, as to be illegal, the relief as sought by the plaintiff/respondent No.2 in Suit was as under :-

^^v& ;g fd fMdzh cgd okfnuh fo:} izfroknhx.k bl vk'k; dh ikfjr dh tk; fd xzke&lhrkiqj] xkSykikj] rglhy&gY}kuh] ftyk&uSuhrky ds [ksr uEcjku 18 feu jdcbZ 0-20 gsDVs0] [ksr ua0&19 feu jdcbZ&0-152 gsDVs0] [ksr ua0&20 feu jdcbZ 117 gsDVs0] [ksr la&215 feu jdcbZ-185 gsDVs0] dqy jdcbZ 0-483 gsDVs0 ds ckcr fd;k x;k dfFkr clh;rukek tks Jherh gseUrh nsch ds i{k esa fnuakd & 17&05&1995 dks fd;k x;k gS] dwVjfpr gksus ls fujLr fd;k tk;A
c&;g fd QthZ olh;rukek fnukad 17&05&1995 ds vk/kkj ij Jherh gseUrh nsch }kjk izfroknh la0&5 ds i{k esa fd;k x;k mijksDr fodz; i= fnukad 08&01&2010 dkuwu vekU; vkSj 'kwU; gSA
l& [kpkZ eqdnek okfnuh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tk;A
n& vU; vuqrks"k tks U;k; fgr esa vko';d gks] okfnuh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA^^

2. Principally, when the Suit was instituted, the present petitioners were defendants to the Suit. After the exchange of the pleadings, the Suit has travelled and has reached at the stage of evidence, when the respondent No.1, herein, has filed an application, paper No.112-Ga, on 20th November, 2018, invoking the provisions contained under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the C.P.C., whereby, a prayer was sought for that since he being the son of the plaintiff/respondent No.2, has got a right, which would be vested with him as a consequence of his right of successions being son of plaintiff /respondent No.2. He contended in the application for impleadment that, if any adjudication is made pertaining to the propriety of the will and the consequential sale deed dated 8th October, 2010, which was executed later, it would prejudice his rights. Hence, the said application for impleadment was filed on 30th November, 2018. It was contended by the counsel for applicant/ respondent No.1; to be well within the ambit of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 CPC. Even otherwise also, if the provisions contained under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC is taken into consideration, this Court is of the view that it does not contemplate, the stage or upto which stage of the proceedings, to which the application could be filed. The only necessity for considering the application as per the intention of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, is that, in case, if any adjudication is made with regard to the subject matter of the Suit, in case, it may have an effect on the rights of a person who is seeking, to be impleaded as a party to the Suit that itself would be sufficient to add the person as party to the proceedings; in whose absence the proceedings cannot be effectively decided on merits or if decided in his absence would effect his rights.

3. The said application for impleadment, was opposed by the present petitioners, who are the defendants to the Suit of respondent No.2, and the learned Trial Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), had rejected the application, paper No. 112 Ga, of the respondent No.1. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff/respondent No.2 had filed a Civil Revision, being Civil Revision No. 19 of 2019, Smt. Champa Devi Vs. Smt. Hira Devi. The Revisional Court by the impugned order dated 19th November, 2019, had allowed the Revision and while setting aside the order of the Trial Court; rejecting the application for impleadment, had allowed the application, paper No. 112 Ga, thereby directing the respondent No.1 to be impleaded as a party respondents to the Suit, being Suit No. 68 of 2011, Hira Devi Vs. Nirmal Devi and others. It is this order, which is being put to challenge by the petitioners, who are the defendants to the suit.

4. The petitioners had argued that filing of an impleadment application by respondent No.1, at a belated stage, apart from the fact that it suffered from the vices of being a collu