C.R. No.6718 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.6718 of 2005 Date of Decision: 3.3.2008 Brijpal Kaur .....Petitioner Vs. Mrs.Harpal Kaur and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.R.K.Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition is to set aside order dated 9.11.2005, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha, whereby Harpal Kaur and Swaranjit Kaur have been impleaded as parties to proceedings for drawing of the final decree. The petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of partition with respect to House No.B-111/179 situated at Jattan Bans, Nabha. A preliminary decree was drawn up on 20.7.1999 and as no appeal was filed, it attained finality. However, respondent no.3 Gurparvesh Singh son of Sukhdev Singh son of Gurbachan Singh, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the judgement and decree dated 20.7.1999. The said application was dismissed, as was the appeal filed against the order of dismissal. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application for drawing of a final decree. During the pendency of the said application, respondents no.1 and 2, filed an application under Order 1 Rule10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading them as parties, which was allowed vide order dated C.R. No.6718 of 2005 2 9.11.2005. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents no.1 and 2 namely; Harpal Kaur and Swaranjit Kaur are the widow and daughter respectively of Sukhdev Singh, pre-deceased son of Gurbachan Singh. Their interest, as co-sharers, alongwith Gurparvesh Singh in the 1/3rd share of property of Sukhdev Singh is duly represented by Gurparvesh Singh. The learned trial Court should not have, therefore, impleaded them as parties at this belated stage, more particularly, when the preliminary decree had attained finality in terms of Section 97 of the CPC. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Respondents no.1 and 2 are admittedly co-sharers alongwith Gurparvesh Singh in the 1/3rd share originally owned by Sukhdev Singh (deceased). Gurparvesh Singh and respondents no.1 and 2 are, therefore, co-sharers in the 1/3rd share admittedly held by Sukhdev Singh (deceased) and are, therefore, entitled to protect their rights in the proceedings for drawing up of the final decree. In this view of the matter, as the impugned order is neither illegal nor perverse and respondents no.1 and 2 were rightly impleaded as parties, the revision petition is dismissed. 3.3.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE