C.R No. 5427 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No. 5427 of 2009 Decided On : 07.10.2009 Ram Singh ...Petitioner versus Om Prakash and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. N. S. Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 08.08.2009, whereby an application filed by Om Prakash for impleading him as a party to the suit, was allowed. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration claiming title to the estate of Yad Ram who has not been heard of for the last more than 32 years and thus, presumed to have died. The said suit was filed against General Public as well. Om Prakash moved an application for impleading him as a party alleging that he is one of the descendants of Yad Ram. The said application has been allowed vide the order impugned in the revision. C.R No. 5427 of 2009 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the applicant Om Prakash has not shown any relation with Yad Ram which may allow him to be impleaded as the defendant in the present suit. It is contended that pedigree table, which has been relied upon by the applicant, is not helpful to the applicant to show him as a descendant of Yad Ram. At the stage of considering the application under order-1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is not to examine the evidence which may be led by the parties in support of their respective contentions. The claim to the estate of Yad Ram is on the basis of his presumed death by the plaintiff. Any person who claims to be legal heir of Yad Ram is not only necessary but also a necessary party. It is for the applicant to prove during the course of evidence, his relationship with Yad Ram. On such evidence alone, it can be found that whether the petitioners or applicant Om Prakash are the legal heirs of Yad Ram? In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. OCTOBER 07, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) shalini JUDGE