IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5558 of 2006 Date of decision: March 08, 2011 Tejinder Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Geetinder Kaur and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harpreet Singh Giani, Advocate for respondent No.1. A.N. Jindal, J This petition assails the order dated 8.9.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Muktsar, whereby the application filed under Order XXII Rules 3 & 10 CPC by the petitioner Tejinder Singh (already impleaded as defendant No.2 in the suit) has been dismissed. Tejinder Singh petitioner- respondent No.2 has pleaded that Rajinder Kaur- plaintiff died on 23.11.2000 at Mukatsar. She had executed a Will dated 9.12.1997 with her free consent and without any undue influence in his favour as well as in favour of Shubhinder Singh. As such, he as well as Shubhinder Singh are the legal heirs of Rajinder Kaur. Earlier the petitioner was impleaded as defendant No.2 and he appeared in the court on 4.10.1997, but later on he could not pursue the suit due to his business in the army. He even could not attend the proceedings in the Court. It was further averred that Shubhinder Singh moved an application dated 16.12.2000 for bringing legal representatives of Rajinder Kaur, whereupon, the trial court vide order dated 23.7.2002 impleaded Shubhinder Singh as the plaintiff in place of Rajinder Kaur. The petitioner or his counsel had not made any such statement for bringing Shubhinder Singh alone on record as the legal representative. The order has been passed in his absence. Thus, he applied for impleading him as plaintiff along with Shubhinder Singh by way of the application dated 20.4.2006. Reply to the application was filed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff had no objection if the application filed by Tejinder Singh is Civil Revision No. 5558 of 2006 -2- *** allowed. The defendant No.1 had contested the application stating that it was time barred and Rajinder Kaur has not executed any Will in favour of the petitioner. This application was decided by the trial court with the following observations :- “This application has been filed by Tejinder Singh to bring him on record as L.Rs of plaintiff Rajinder Kaur on the basis of will stated to have been executed by Rajinder Kaur on 9.12.1997. Record reveals that applicant Tejinder Singh was originally impleaded as defendant No.2. After the death of Rajinder Kaur all the L.Rs were ordered to be brought on record vide order dated 23.7.2002 passed by the then learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.). Amended head note of the plaint also reveals that applicant was also impleaded as legal heir of plaintiff Rajinder Kaur. The parties have already concluded evidence. Therefore, this application is without any merit and stands dismissed.” In view of the no objection made by Shubhinder Singh, it would be deemed that he had not denied if the Will was not executed by Rajinder Kaur in his favour or in favour of the petitioner. In any case, the trial court has specifically mentioned that vide order dated 23.7.2002, the petitioner as well as Shubhinder Singh were impleaded as party. Since the petitioner had never applied for transposing himself as plaintiff, therefore, he cannot be transposed as such. However, his interest do not clash with the interest of the petitioner, therefore, he as well as Shubhinder Singh would also be treated as legal representatives of Rajinder Kaur and in case Shubhinder Singh succeeds in the suit, then certainly, the defendant No.1 would be beneficiary along with the plaintiff, if he succeeds in establishing his rights in the property on the basis of the Will dated 9.12.1997. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. March 08, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge