IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:10.01.2025 Rajnish Joshi ... Petitioner Vs.

Vijay Kumari & others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

...

SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner for impleadment as a party in the appeal as well in the suit, was dismissed.

2. The relevant facts required for disposal of the present revision petition are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are exclusive owners in joint possession to the extent of 1/2 share each in land measuring 8 kanals 8 marlas as detailed in head note of the plaint being legal heirs of Smt. Parwati W/o late Sarwan Singh on the basis of valid registered Will dated 09.01.2006 and order passed by AC IInd Grade, Garhshankar of sanctioning of mutation No.23693 in favour of plaintiff No.1 and defendants in equal shares as per natural succession is wrong, illegal, null and void, having no effects on rights, title or interest of the plaintiffs and ineffective and inoperative and is liable to be set aside. This suit was contested by the defendants and the suit was dismissed on 15.09.2016. The appellants/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court against the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.09.2016. During pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Court, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the petitioner. It was alleged that Parwati Devi widow of Sarwan Singh was owner of property and after her death, mutation was sanctioned in favour of her legal heirs. Kamal Thakur S/o Parwati Devi executed an agreement to sell dated 02.03.2007 regarding land measuring 1 kanal 16 marlas situated at Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur for an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- and he received entire sale consideration at the time of execution of the said agreement. It was stipulated in the agreement that applicant could get the sale deed executed as and when he required. Kamal Thakur also executed Power of Attorney dated 02.03.2007 in favour of applicant/petitioner. Kamal Thakur never disclosed to applicant/petitioner about the present suit. Kamal Thakur filed the present suit in connivance with Vijay Kumari, his sister and Ajay Kumar s/o Vijay Kumari on the basis of forged Will dated 09.01.2006. When he came to know about the present suit, the applicant was told that said suit would be got dismissed. Said suit was dismissed on 15.09.2016. About one month back, applicant came to know that Kamal Thakur had made statement in the Court admitting the claim of the plaintiff of the suit and also admitted the Will in favour of the plaintiff, which shows that Kamal Thakur is conniving with the plaintiff, after execution of the agreement to sell and execution of power of attorney and he intends to defeat rights of the applicant in connivance with his sister and her son. It was alleged that applicant is in possession of land measruing 1 kanal and 16 marlas and to that effect there is also recital in the agreement dated 02.03.2007. Thus, applicant is an interested party to the present suit to establish the collusion between the plaintiff and Kamal Thakur and Kamal Thakur intentionally is not contesting the case. The other respondents are also in collusion with the appellants, so it was requested that applicant be impleaded as a party in the present suit as well as in the appeal.

3. Notice of the said application was issued and it was resisted by the appellants as well as respondents by filing separate written replies. It was alleged that suit is earlier to the alleged agreement and Will in favour of appellants is a registered document which cannot be ante dated. It was further alleged that the presen