CR No.5290 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5290 of 2004 Date of Decision: 5.08.2009 Gurcharan Singh ...Petitioner Vs. Gurdev Kaur & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge an order passed by the learned trial court on an application moved in a pending suit under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code). A suit for declaration with with consequential relief of permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff and during the pendency of the suit one of the plaintiff i.e. Smt.Bachint Kaur alias Chatin Kaur died. An application was moved by the applicant/respondents claiming to be her legal representatives under a Will said to have been executed on 22.5.2003. CR No.5290 of 2004 2 Application was moved by Gurbir Singh and others. It was prayed that Gurbir Singh minor son of Roop Singh, Tarunbir Singh minor son of Resham Singh and Inderjit Singh minor son of Laljit Singh be impleaded as her legal heirs. The petitioner contested the application on the plea that no Will was executed by Chatin Kaur, and the Will set up by the applicants was forged and fabricated document. Stand was taken that in fact the following persons are the legal representatives of Chatin Kaur:- a) Resham Singh, b) Gurbachan Singh, c) Charanjit Kaur daughter-in-law of Chatin Kaur (deceased), w/o her predeceased son Rup Singh, d) Hardip Kaur d/o Chatin Kaur (deceased) w/o Gurmeet Singh r/o Ratta Khera, Tehsil and Distt. Ferozepur; e) Bhajan Kaur d/o Chatin Kaur (deceased) w/o Bhupinder Singh r/o V.Ajitgill, Tehsil and Distt.Faridkot.” Learned trial court in view of the dispute raised, ordered the impleading of all the legal representatives of Smt.Chatin Kaur including the one who were named to be legal representatives under the Will. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground that before impleading the LRs. parties it was incumbent upon the court to first frame an issue as to “Whether Bachint Kaur alias Chatin Kaur had executed a Will in favour of Gurbir Singh, Tarunbir Singh and Inderjit Singh?” On consideration of the matter, I find no force in this CR No.5290 of 2004 3 contention. Petitioners have no lis with Smt. Chatin Kaur and therefore, their rights are not prejudiced by impleading of her legal representatives. Learned court below in the facts and circumstances of the case was right in impleading all the legal representatives of Chatin Kaur, i.e. LRs by succession and those claiming under the Will. No fault can be found with the order passed by the learned trial court to call for interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K.Sharma) 5.08.2009 Judge rp