Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Q.M. Haq, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Indrajeet Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent. Facts, in brief, as submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist are that respondent no.1/ Smt. Geeta Pandey has filed a regular suit for declaration , registered as Regular Suit No. 43 of 1980 ( Smt. Geeta Pandey Vs. Sri Pratap Bhan Pandey and others ). In the said matter on behalf of the revisionist / Sri Raghvendra Datta Ram Pandey an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC has been moved for impleadment as respondent on the ground that on 10.7.1998 one Sri Indra Bhan Dutt Pandey during his life time had made an unregistered will in his favour his “Nati” Sri Raghvendra Dutt Ram Pandey in respect of his share in the property for which a suit for declaration and on 20.8.2010 he has got knowledge in respect to the pendency of suit registered as paper no. 309-C.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the material facts on record , learned court below by order dated 11.1.2012, rejected the same with the following directions:-

(Matter in other language)

3. Aggrieved by the said order, present revision h