IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5967 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: March 22, 2011. Jinda Bai and others. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Ram Chand and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Ms. Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate for the applicants-petitioners. Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.2755 of 2011 Registry has reported that due to the recent fire incident in the Branch, the present application was not traceable and hence, could not be listed for hearing with the main case on the last date of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner has supplied another copy of CM No.2755 of 2011. The same is taken on record. File of CM No.2755 of 2011 is reconstructed. Requests for placing on record Annexures P4 and P5. The same are taken on record subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. CR No.5967 of 2010 CR No.5967 of 2010 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 30.07.2010, Annexure P3 passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Fatehabad vide which application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the ‘CPC’) for impleading them as party, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, a suit for declation has been filed by legal heirs of Lal Chand, deceased son of Mehnga Ram and Smt.Dharmo Bai, claiming themselves to be owner of the property in dispute on the basis of Will allegedly executed by Smt.Dharmo Bai in their favour as well as in favour of Kashmir Chand –defendant. Whereas Kashmir Chand –defendant is claiming exclusive ownership over the whole land on the basis of another Will executed in his favour by Smt.Dharmo Bai. The present petitioners are daughters of Smt.Dharmo Bai (deceased), inheritance of whose property is in dispute. Hence, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they are necessary party to be impleaded in these proceedings as their rights are also affected. Hence, petitioners being daughters of deceased –Smt.Dharmo Bai inheritance of whose estate is in dispute in this case, are necessary party to be impleaded. 2 CR No.5967 of 2010 Learned trial Court has committed illegality and material irregularity in passing the impugned order. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 30.07.2010, Annexure P3 is set aside. Petitioners are permitted to be impleaded as party. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as the same is pending since 2008 and efforts be made to decide the same within six months from the next date of hearing. Disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 22, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3