ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The instant petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

“a. Call for records from the Hon’ble Court of Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Ld. ADJ-02, South, Saket Court, New Delhi. Ld. in respect of the suit bearing PC No. 15/2017 titled as “Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.”;

b. Set aside the impugned order dated 13.09.2018 and 27.04.2023 in the suit bearing PC No. 15/2017 titled as “Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.” and thereby the Legal Heirs/LR’s of the defendant no. 2 namely Late Sh. Sanjeev Khanna be impleaded as defendant and be allowed to lead their defense in the said suit;

c. Pass any other or further order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the revisionist and against the respondents, in the interest of justice.”

2. The respondents filed a suit under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for probate of Will of Smt. Swadesh Khanna W/o Sh. Hans Raj Khanna before the learned District and Session Judge, South, Saket Court, New Delhi against Sh. Sanjeev Khanna (since deceased) who was pleaded as defendant No. 2 in the said suit. The suit was registered vide PC no. 15/2017 and the same is pending for adjudication

3. Late Sh. Sanjeev Khanna had been proceeded ex-parte in the above said probate case vide order dated 13th September, 2018. The petitioners, Mr. Himanshu Khanna and Mrs. Meenakshi Khanna, are the legal heirs of the deceased Late Sh. Sanjeev Khanna who passed away on 23rd October, 2020. 4. After the death of Late Sh. Sanjeev Khanna, the petitioners filed application under Order XXII Rule 1 and 4 of the CPC, for impleadment of the present petitioners as legal heirs. They had also filed another application under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC against the ex-parte order dated 13th September, 2018 passed by the learned Trial Court. The application under Order XXII Rule 1 and 4 of the CPC, was allowed vide order dated 21st February, 2023 for the purpose of hearing the application under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC.

5. Subsequently, the application under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC, was rejected by learned Court below vide order dated 27th April, 2023. Being aggrieved by the said impugned orders dated 27th April 2023 and 13th September, 2018, the petitioners have filed instant petition under this Court’s revisional jurisdiction.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders dated 13th September, 2018 and 27th April, 2023 suffers from illegality and jurisdictional error since the Court below has failed to appreciate that the petitioners have established “sufficient cause” for setting aside the ex- parte orders passed by it.

7. It is submitted that while passing the orders dated 13th September, 2018 and 27th April, 2023, the learned court below failed to consider the fact that no notice or summons were served upon Late Sh. Sanjeev Khanna during his lifetime and the learned Trial Court proceeded ex-parte upon the presumption that the service was affected to him.

8. It is contended that the petitioners had approached the learned Court below immediately after gaining knowledge about the pendency of the suit. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that rights of the petitioners are directly affected by the reliefs sought by the respondent in its suit and ex-parte proceedings would not only cause irreparable harm to the petitioners but would also result in defeating the principles of natural justice.

9. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that the suit is at an initial stage and the respondent has not even furnished his evidence by way of affidavit or his list of witnesses before the Court below and no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if the petitioners are allowed to lead their defense.

10. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in