IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5153 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 17, 2010 Shashi Kant Chopra …Petitioner Versus Bina Chopra and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH. 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. Plaintiff has filed present petition challenging the order dated 22.07.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka, thereby allowing the application of Smt. Bina Chopra to be impleaded as one of the defendants. In nutshell, plaintiff – present petitioner has filed suit for possession by way of partition of the suit property. In a suit filed by the plaintiff – petitioner, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. saying that they have valuable rights in the property and they are having share in the property which previously owned by their mother being class I heir along with plaintiff and defendants in the present suit. Learned Trial Court while C.R. No. 5153 of 2010 disposing of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. has recorded the finding that originally property in question belonged to Dhri Munshi Ram and he has executed a Will dated 17.02.1975 in favour of his daughter Smt. Munna Devi (mother of the parties) and provision was made in the Will that after the death of Smt. Munna Devi property shall devolve upon the maternal grandsons i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant. It is further found that the alleged Will dated 17.02.1975 set up by the plaintiff is yet to be proved. It is also recorded by the learned Trial Court that all the heirs of Smt. Munna Devi and those of Munshi Ram are necessary and proper parties to the suit. I am also of the opinion that if Will is not proved, then of course, respondents – applicant shall be having share in the property in view of the fact that they are also one of the heirs of Dhir Munshi Ram. In a suit for partition, every co-sharer or any person claiming to be share in the property is necessary and proper party. Since the applicant – respondents are claiming themselves to be one of the co-sharers, hence learned Trial Court has committed no illegality by impleading them as defendants. No interference is called for. Dismissed. August 17, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 2