IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1497 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.3.2010 Bachan Lal ....Petitioner Versus Rattan and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated February 10, 2010, passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for impleading Vicky son of Rattan Lal as one of the defendants in the suit was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for possession on the basis of Will dated September 30, 2002 executed by his father Chuni Lal in his favour. The defendants in the suit were other LRs of Chuni Lal. At the fag end of the trial, an application was filed for impleading Vicky son of Rattan Lal as one of the defendants on the plea that in the cross- examination of DW1 Manmohan Singh it transpired that in the earlier will executed by Chuni Lal, which was superseded by the Will executed in favour of petitioner/plaintiff Vicky was one of the beneficiary and this fact was not in knowledge of petitioner/plaintiff. For that reason he could not be impleaded as defendant in the suit. The fact came to his knowledge only at the time of cross- examination of DW1 Manmohan Singh as even in the written statement filed no such plea was taken and general objection was raised regarding non-impleading of necessary parties. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. As regards the knowledge of the earlier will dated May 13, 2002 and the names of the beneficiaries therein, is concerned the fact is mentioned even in the will projected by the petitioner/plaintiff on the basis of which he claimed possession over the suit property. Once the factum of other beneficiaries in the earlier Will which according to petitioner/plaintiff was superseded by the Will executed in his favour was well within his knowledge at the time of filing of suit way back in February 2003, as there is no reason to allow the application for impleading fresh defendant in the suit which is at the fag end of the trial. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 19.3.2010 JUDGE Reema