C45 v. SushiI Kum ar S anot her

Learned Trial Court perm it t edall t he children of Nirm ala I Nat i t o be im pleadedas pait iesin t he appeal which is cause grievancet o t he pet it ioners Learned counsel for t he pet it ionershas cont ended t hat t hereis a Wiil Um a 16: 46 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh in favour of t he pet it ionersand t herefore t heyonly JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 7 4 1 0 C I C5 I 1 C6 4r t l R No062 of 2009 OSMl m 3a can be im pleadedas pait iest o t he exclusion of t he ot her I egal ReI iance was placedon t he provisionsof Order 22 Rule 5 CPC t o cont end t hat it was incum bent upon t he Appellat eCout t t o direct t he Subordinat e Coun t o go int o t he m at t er and det erm ine as t o whet her t he pet it ionerswere t he sole t o representdeceased Nirm ala Wat i or t hat t he respondent sand ot her survivingheirs of Nirm ala Wat i were also requiredt o be im pleaded Reliance was fut t her placedupon t he passedby t his Court in t he case of Karam iitKaur VSo Gurbant Sinqh2003 31 Civ CC 88 and Sm t Sahab Kaur VS Avt ar Sinc 2005 31P L R 766 On t he ot her hand I earnedcounsel for t he respondent s pleadedt hat t he quest ionwhet her whet her t he sole est at e of t he deceased would be t he Will is valid or not and had a rightt o succeed t o t he a m at t er t o be gone int o by t he Court which m ay grantprobat e But at t his st age t he rightof t he ot her I egal could not be t hrown out Reliance was placedon 2010ll Apex Court iudqm ent 001 t it led Suresh Kum ar Bansal Vs Krishna Bansal S anot her Aft er hearingI earned counsel for t he part ies am of t he opiniont hat t here I Sno infirm it yin t he im pugnedorder There is no t hat t he pet it ionersand t he respondent sare t he I egal of deceased Nirm ala Wat i and for t he purposes of prosecut ingt he appeal all were necessarypart ies Whet her t here is a valid Will Um a 16: 46 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh in favour of t he JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 7 9r R No062 of 2009 I OSMI 14 e m 4e pet it ionersor not I S a quest ion t o t he succession t o t he est at e of Nirm ala Wat i which can be det erm inedby t he Couit t hat m aygrantprobat eor det erm ine t he validit yof t he Will For t he presentproceedingsall t he I egal have right lybeen im pieadedand t hus t here is no infirm it yin t he im pugnedorder No groundt o int erfere Dism issed The for st ayis also dism issed in view of t he 13 February2010 Monika J ee9e I MAHESHGROVERI JUDGE 0 U 9 1 I a5 7 410 Gl41 Um a 16: 46 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document