IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6989 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 8.5.2009 Gurwinder Kaur ......Petitioner Versus Jagjit Kaur and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order dated 31.10.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Phagwara whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as defendant in the civil suit titled as Jagjit Kaur v. Punjab State and others (Annexure P-1) has been declined. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 claiming herself to be widow of one Balwinder Singh had filed a suit for declaration that she and defendant No.4 Harbhajan Kaur, who is mother of aforesaid Balwinder Singh, are entitled to half share each of the retiral benefits of the aforesaid Balwinder Singh and with a further prayer for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to release all service benefits in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.4 to the extent of half share each along with interest. As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner who is the sister of aforesaid Balwinder Singh (since deceased) is claiming a right to receive the pensionary benefits of Balwinder Singh to the exclusion of respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 i.e. widow and mother of CR No.6989 of 2008(O&M) -2- Balwinder Singh on the basis of a registered Will dated 18.12.2005 (Annexure P-6). On the basis of these facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the trial Court had passed the impugned order erroneously as on the basis of the aforesaid Will, she has a right to inherit the property/estate of Balwinder Singh and therefore, she was a necessary and proper party before the trial Court in the suit. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondents has very fairly stated that the petitioner may be allowed to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit. However, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the respondents be allowed to take all available objections to the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has no objection to this. It is needless to say that on impleadment of the petitioner, the respondents would definitely have a right to controvert the pleadings/defence filed by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, this revision petition is allowed as aforesaid. Parties will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed. May 8, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE