C.R No.6213 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No.6213 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.12.2011 Subhash Chand and others ....Petitioners Versus Kiran Devi and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1. JASWANT SINGH, J By filing the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioners claiming themselves to be natural legal heirs of Suraj Bhan (since deceased) have laid challenge to the impugned order dated 15.3.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Narnaul vide which their application for impleading them as legal representatives, has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that in an execution petition, the the petitioners being the directed effected party and legal heirs of the said Suraj Bhan moved an application dated 24.11.2009 for bringing them on record as legal representatives, which has been dismissed by the learned Executing Court, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the claim of the petitioners for impleadment as legal representatives of said Suraj Bhan (since deceased) has wrongly been rejected despite the fact they C.R No.6213 of 2010 #2# are natural legal heirs of said Suraj Bhan whereas on the contrary, Kiran Devi-respondent No.1, who is the daughter-in-law of said Suraj Bhan has been ordered to be impleaded as legal representative. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners while arguing that the learned Executing Court has rightly rejected their claim for legal representatives. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this Court finds merit in the present petition and the same deserves to be allowed. It is not in dispute that Kiran Devi, who is the daughter-in- law of said Suraj Bhan (since deceased), has already been impleaded as legal representative of said Suraj Bhan. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner Nos.1,2, & 3 are sons of said Suraj Bhan whereas petitioner No.4 is the grand daughter-in-law of said Suraj Bhan, therefore, all are legal heirs. It is also not in dispute that civil suit between the parties in which dispute in respect of Will No.46 dated 19.6.2000 alleged to have been executed by said Suraj Bhan in favour of Kiran Devi-respondent No.1, is also pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Narnaul. Moreover, the present application was moved under the provisions of Order 22 Rule 5 CPC only for impleadment as legal representatives in the execution proceedings of decree for partition just to pursue the legal proceedings and was not going to adjudicate upon any right, title or interest of the parties inter-se on merits. C.R No.6213 of 2010 #3# In a somewhat similar situation, this Court in a judgment reported as Mahender Nath v. Satender Nath & Ors, 2010(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2432 allowed the both natural as well as heirs of both the parties claiming on the basis of Will to be impleaded as party in an eviction suit. The relevant para Nos.15 and 16 of this judgment read as under: “15. In the present case also, there is a contest of two Legal Representatives out of which one claims to be natural heir and other claims to be a legatee and the Will in favour of the legatee is already under challenge in a Civil Suit No.531 of 2007, which is pending in the Court of subordinate Judge at Delhi. 16. Keeping in view the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, namely, Charanjit Singh and others (supra) and Mahender Kaur and Anr (supra) and Suresh Kumar Bansal (supra), I am of the view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside wherein, the application filed by Satender Nath to be substituted as Legal Representative of deceased Onkar Nath on the basis of Registered Will has been ordered and the application of Mahender Nath for substitution on the basis of his natural succession has been dismissed. It is, thus, ordered that natural heir, namely, Mahender Nath and Satender Nath, claiming substitution on the basis of Will, should be impleaded as Legal Representatives of deceased Onkar Nath in the pending execution. However, this arrangement shall be subject to the decision of the Civil Suit No.531 of 2007 having been filed by Mahender Nath challenging the Will in favour of Satender Nath in the subordinate Court at Delhi. With these directions, present revision petition is disposed of.” In view of the law laid down by this Court in Mahender C.R No.6213 of 2010 #4# Nath's case (supra), the controversy in the present case is squarely covered, therefore, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.3.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Narnaul is set aside, and the application dated 24.11.2009 of petitioner is allowed subject to the final outcome of the aforesaid pending civil suit. December 20, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE