- (1.) Urmila Devi has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 7.9.2011, Annexure P/1 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohindergarh thereby dismissing application Annexure P/2 moved by petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) for becoming party to the suit which has been instituted by respondent no.1/plaintiff against respondent nos. 2 to 13/defendants.
(2.) In the suit, plaintiff has set up registered Will allegedly executed in his favour by Jadaw Devi mother of the petitioner and has challenged unregistered Will allegedly executed by Jadaw Devi in favour of defendants. The petitioner alleged that she is one of the natural heir of her mother Jadaw Devi and therefore, she is necessary party to the suit. The application of the petitioner has, however, been dismissed by the trial court necessitating the filing of the instant revision petition.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner being one of the natural heirs of her mother Jadaw Devi is necessary party to the suit which relates to the property of Jadaw Devi. The contention is apparently attractive but cannot be accepted because the suit was filed on 20.12.2004 whereas application Annexure P/2 was moved on 3.9.2011 i.e. almost seven years after the filing of the suit. The application is, therefore, not bonafide and has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. On the other hand, the petitioner is at liberty to file suit to assert her own rights. Any decree passed in the instant suit shall not be binding on the petitioner who is not party to the suit.;