72 14L V 4 P7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH l R No062 of 2009 O8MI Decided on RajeshKumar S another Petitioners W Q VERSUS SushiI Kumar S another 0 0 Respondents I C5 CORAMe HONBLE MRJUSTICE MAHESH GROVER I Present Mr V Sandhir Advocate er for the petitioners Mr AmarjitMarkan Advocate r for the respondents I MAHESH GROVERJ C45 C No0972Cll of 2009 7 The is allowed as prayedfor C2 No062 of 2009 The have impugnedthe order dated 42009 passedbythe Additional DistrictJudgeAmritsar By vittue of impugnedorder the respondentswere permittedto be impleadedas paitiesin the appeal which was pendingbefore the Additional District Judge Amritsar Initiallythe proceedingsin the appealwere between one Nirmala Wati wife of Diwan Chand and the petitionersRajesh Kumar and Krishan Kumarwho are the sons of Nirmala Wati and Diwan Chand The respondentin this case was SushiI Kumar Slo Diwan Chand Uma 2012.12.18 16: 46 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 9p R N5062 of 2009 O8MI 2a 9 NirmalaWati had died on 32009 and thereafter two were moved one by RajeshKumar 8 Krishan Kumar and another byrespondentSushil Kumar In the applicationfiled byRajeshKumar and Krishan kumar it was pleadedthat Smt NirmalaWati had died on 322009 and was survivedbythree sons 0 and one namelySushil Kumar Krishan Kumar S Rajesh 0 Kumar and Meena Bhasin and that before her death she had C executed a Will on 242002 in favour of her two sons namely C5 RajeshKumar and Krishan kumar bequeathingher entire propeny I Ill equalsharestothem It was thus pleadedthat theywere the Z sole of Nirmala Wati and the respondentshad no rL concern I Kumar denied the execution of the 05 Will byfilingreplyto the filed bythe petitionersalleged it to be a forgeddocument and pleadedthat after the death of 7 Z NirmalaWati all her three sons and one daughterwere Iegal m who inherited the estate of Nirmala wati In the filed by respondentSushil Kumar it was pleadedthat the Will is forgedand all three sons and one daughterIeft behind bydeceased Nirmala Wati be impleaded as partiesto the appeal Learned Trial Court permitted all the children of Nirmala INati to be impleaded as paitiesin the appeal which is cause of grievance to the petitioners Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that thereis a Wiil in favour of the petitioners and therefore theyonly Uma 2012.12.18 16: 46 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 7 R No062 of 2009 OSMl m3a 4 can be impleadedas paitiesto the exclusion of the other Iegal ReIiance was placedon the provisionsof Order 22 Rule 5 CPC to contend that it was incumbent upon the AppellateCoutt to direct the Subordinate Coun to go into the matterand determineas to whether the petitioners were the sole 1 to representdeceased Nirmala Wati or that the 0 respondentsand other survivingheirs of Nirmala Wati were also C I requiredto be impleaded Reliance was futther placedupon the C5 passedby this Court in the case of KaramiitKaur VSo I Gurbant Sinqh2003 31 Civ CC 88 and Smt Sahab Kaur VS Avtar Sinc 2005 31P L R 766 On the other hand Iearnedcounsel for the respondents 1 pleadedthat the questionwhether the Will is valid or not and C6 whether the sole had a rightto succeed to the 4r estate of the deceased would be a matter to be gone into by the em Court which may grantprobate But at this stagethe rightof the tl other Iegal could not be thrown out Reliance was placedon 2010ll Apex Court iudqment 001 titled Suresh Kumar Bansal Vs Krishna Bansal S another After hearingIearned counsel for the parties am of the opinionthat there ISno infirmity in the impugned order There is no doubt that the petitionersand the respondents are the Iegal of deceased Nirmala Wati and for the purposes of prosecutingthe appeal all were necessaryparties Whether there is a valid Will in favour of the Uma 2012.12.18 16: 46 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 14 7 e R No062 of 2009 IOSMI m4e 9r petitioners or not IS a question to the succession to the estate of Nirmala Wati which can be determinedby the Couit that maygrantprobateor determine the validityof the Will For the presentproceedingsall the Iegal have rightlybeen impieadedand thus there is no infirmityin the impugnedorder No groundto interfere Dismissed 0 The for stayis also dismissed in view of the U above 9 ee9e 13 February2010 IMAHESHGROVERI Monika JUDGE J 1 I a5 7 410 Gl41 Uma 2012.12.18 16: 46 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document