Civil Revision No.3175 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.3175 of 2009 Decided on : May 30, 2009 Baljit Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS Ajit Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Baljit Singh, petitioner – plaintiff (herein referred as `the petitioner') has assailed the order dated 25.2.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Batala, allowing the application of Dalip Kaur - respondent N o.7 for impleading her as a party – defendant in the suit. The petitioner preferred a suit for declaration to the effect that he along with other plaintiffs and respondent No.1, is owner in possession over the suit land, which they had inherited from their grand father S.Makhan Singh son of S.Harnam Singh son of S.Kesar Singh resident of village Shikhar, Tehsil Dera baba Nanak on the basis of the registered Will dated 18.9.2000 and defendants – respondents No.2 to 6 have got no right, title or interest in the said land. He also claimed Civil Revision No.3175 of 2009 [ 2 ] consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.5 and 6 from interfering in their peaceful possession. The suit was contested by respondents No.2 to 6. On 22.9.2006, Dalip Kaur – respondent No.7 moved an application claiming herself to be the widow of Makhan Singh and, thus, requested for her impleadment in the suit as party – defendant, on the ground that Makhan Singh had executed a Will dated 20.12.2000 in her favour as well as Banta Singh (respondent No.2). Heard. Since Dalip Kaur, claiming herself to be the widow of Makhan Singh, has a legitimate right to contest for seeking his property, which is subject matter of dispute, therefore, certainly, she is a necessary party. The question, whether she is actually widow or was legally wedded wife, is still subject of adjudication by the Court, if the plaintiff agitates the same. She in order to protect her rights should necessarily be given opportunity to prove her claim, by impleading her as party- defendant in the suit. As such, the Trial Court has rightly allowed her application. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. ( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE May 30, 2009 `gian'