Civil Revision No. 3667 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3667 of 2009 Date of decision: 12.08.2009 Mangat ....Petitioner versus Attar Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Mor, Advocate, for the respondents. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.6.2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gohana, vide which the application moved by the petitioner, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been declined. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration and possession claiming 1/9th share in the joint property held by the plaintiff and the defendants. Defendants No. 13 to 16 were impleaded being legal heirs of Dal Singh, who died prior to filing of the suit. Amendment was sought on the plea, that Smt. Mewa widow of Dal Singh being Class I heir of Dal Singh was also required to be impleaded as party, being necessary party to the lis. The learned trial Court has been pleased to dismiss the Civil Revision No. 3667 of 2009 -2- application primarily on the ground, that during the cross-examination, a specific question was put to the petitioner as to why Smt. Mewa was not impleaded as party. But in spite of question having been asked on 25.4.2006, the petitioner took no steps to implead her as party, therefore, the learned trial Court held that the petitioner was negligent in conducting the suit and dismissed the application. The impugned order cannot be sustained. Under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has an absolute discretion to implead necessary parties at any stage of the proceedings. Once it cannot be disputed, that Smt. Mewa is necessary party for adjudication of the suit, merely because application was moved at belated stage, could not be a ground to reject it. This revision is allowed, impugned order is set aside, the application moved by the petitioner for impleading Smt. Mewa under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. The petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for the inconvenience caused to the defendant/respondents. It is made clear, that the petitioner would not be permitted to lead any additional evidence merely by impleading Smt. Mewa, as other legal representatives of Dal Singh were already on record. Revision allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 12, 2009 R.S.