C.R. No.5812 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5812 of 2009 Date of Decision.03.10.2011 S. Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon .....Petitioner Versus Smt. Amarjit Kaur Dhillon and another .....Respondents Present: None. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The civil revision is against the orders passed on 23.05.2008 and 22.07.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh whereby an application moved at the instance of the respondents to implead themselves as legal representatives for the deceased-plaintiff was allowed and application filed by the defendant to implead him as legal heir and transpose him as plaintiff was dismissed. It is not clear as to how a single revision petition was filed against two orders passed. The registry ought not to have first numbered the petition in the manner it was filed. However, I do not propose to take this issue for dismissal of the case. Even otherwise, the order would require to be supported for following reasons. 2. At the time when the matter was brought up for hearing on 09.10.2009, the petitioner sought for time to place on record certain documents and the case was adjourned sine die. There is no representation for the petitioner today. 3. The petition is curious, for the only defendant cannot seek for C.R. No.5812 of 2009 -2- a transposition as a plaintiff by the fact of death of sole plaintiff. It is meaningless for such application to be filed by the petitioner and if it was dismissed, it was rightly done so. In this case, the sisters of the deceased had relied on a Will and sought for their impleadment through an application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. The petitioner's grievance is that in the civil suit impleadment could not have been done without an adjudication under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC. The impleadment at the stage of Order 22 Rule 3 does not decide the issue of title or the validity of the Will. If there is a Will, it is a fundamental precept in law that unless proof is tendered in the manner known to law namely of the provisions of the Indian Succession Act and the Evidence Act, a Will cannot be accepted. The impleadment is only for the purpose of prosecuting the case against the defendant and the petitioner, who is the defendant, will be at liberty to dispute the genuineness of the Will. If the Will is found to be true, the legal representatives, who have been directed to be impleaded, will have whatever rights the deceased plaintiff had. If on the other hand, the Will is found to be not true, the petitioner will still rank as heir along with the respondents and the trial Court will be at liberty to pass such appropriate directions at the time of grant of decree as the situation might warrant. 4. There is no scope for intervention in revision. The orders are affirmed and the revision petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 03, 2011 Pankaj*