Civil Revision No.1078 of 2011(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.1078 of 2011(O&M) Decided on : February 16, 2011 Joginder Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS Makhan Singh etc. ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The dispute is with regard to the property of Karam Kaur, who died leaving behind two sons, namely; Mohinder Singh and Joginder Singh and a daughter Satto. Third son Darshan Singh, pre-deceased Karam Kaur, leaving behind three children, namely; Makhan Singh, Ranjit Kaur and Amarjit Kaur and all of them are parties to the suit filed by Joginder Singh. Joginder Singh has set up his claim over the property on the basis of the Will of Karam Kaur. The petitioner apprehends that the suit may not be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party, as if the Will is ignored, then Satto being legal representative of Karam Kaur, is also a necessary party to the suit. Thus, it appears that the application for impleading Satto, has been filed by Civil Revision No.1078 of 2011(O&M) [ 2 ] the petitioner to over-come the objection, taken by the defendants. Similar, position arose before the Rajasthan High Court in case Chhagan All vs. Megh Raj and others, Civil Court cases 1987, page 84, and it was held as under:- “2. Admittedly, this prayer was made by the plaintiff to overcome the objection of non-joinder of the party taken by the defendants. This being so, there was no occasion to refuse addition of the party and the consequential amendment in the plaint. Even otherwise, before dismissing the suit on the ground of non-joinder of a party the court has to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to implead the necessary parties. This being so, the prayer made by the plaintiff as a result of the defendants' objection should have been readily granted.” Even otherwise, it is a settled proposition of law that no suit could be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party/parties. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court that if it is of the view that the suit could be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party, then it would provide opportunity to the petitioner to implead Satto as party – defendant, and in that eventuality, the impugned order will not stand in the way of the Trial Court. February 16, 2011 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE