JUDGMENT
V.M. Jain, J.
1. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two revision petitions arising out of the same suit pending before the trial Court. The facts, which are necessary for the disposal of these revision petitions, are that a suit for declaration was filed by Raunaq Singh, challenging the Kareva marriage with defendant No. 1, Balwinder Kaur, as also the sale deed in her favour being illegal and void and also challenging the general power of attorney executed in favour of defendant No. l being a fake and forged document and also challenging the subsequent sale deeds executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 and also seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. The said suit was contested by the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, Smt. Sukhwant Kaur (daughter of Raunaq Singh, and revision petitioner in Civil Revision No. 3996 of 1999 and respondent No. l in Civil Revision No. 1243 of 1997) filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10, Civil property Code, for being impleaded as a party alleging herself to be the owner of the suit property. It was alleged that her interest was not safe in the hands of her father and that she may be impleaded as party because her presence was essential to adjudicate upon the real controversy and for the just decision of the case and also to avoid multiplicity of the litigation. The said application was contested by defendant No. 2, alleging therein that the suit had been filed by Raunaq Singh in his individual capacity and that applicant, Smt. Sukhwant Kaur, had no concern with the suit property and that it would change the entire nature of the suit and introduce a new cause of action. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, vide order dated February 3, 1997, allowed the said application of Smt. Sukhwant Kaur and impleaded her as defendant No. 5 in the suit filed by Raunaq Singh. However, her prayer for being impleaded as petitioner was declined. Aggrieved against the said order dated February 3, 1997, the present revision petition (No. 1243 of 1997) has been filed by one of the L. Rs. of defendant No. 2.
2. At the time when the revision petition was admitted to the final hearing, it was directed by this Court that the proceedings before the trial Court may continue but the operation of the impugned order (dated February 3, 1997) shall remain stayed.
3. During the pendency of the suit, Raunaq Singh, petitioner, expired. Thereafter, Smt. Sukhwant Kaur, being the daughter of Raunaq Singh, was brought on the record as his legal representative, vide order dated February 25, 1998 and she was allowed to proceed with the suit filed by Raunaq Singh. Subsequently, Smt. Sukhwant Kaur filed an application that she was ordered to be impleaded as defendant No. 5 in the civil suit filed by Raunaq Singh vide order dated February 3,1997 and that she may be transposed as petitioner. The said application was contested by defendant No. 2. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides ,vide order dated April 7, 1999, dismissed the said application of Smt. Sukhwant Kaur with the observation that she was already impleaded as L.R. of Raunaq Singh, plaintiff. Aggrieved against the said order dated April 7, 1999, Smt. Sukhwant Kaur has filed Civil revision No. 3996 of 1999.
4. Counsel for the parties have been heard in both the cases.
Taking into consideration that Raunaq Singh had filed the suit against defendant No. 1, Balwinder Kaur, defendant No. 2, Lt. Col. Iqbal Singh Deol, defendant No. 3, Jarnail Singh and defendant No. 4, Kirpal Singh, challenging various transactions between him and the defendants and taking into consideration that Smt. Sukhwant Kaur did not figure any where in between those transactions which were challenged by Raunaq Singh, in my opinion, the learned trial Court erred in law in ordering that Smt. Sukhwant Kaur be impleaded as defendant No. 5 in the suit filed by Raunaq Singh. This is especially so when Smt. Sukhwant Kaur was claiming her own independent interest in the suit property and wanted to be impleaded as a party in the suit in order to safeguard her interest. Smt. Sukhwant Kaur was competent to file a separate suit to safeguard her own interest instead of being impleaded as a party in the suit filed by her father, Reunaq Singh. Be that as it may, now the situation has, in any case, changed after the death of Raunaq Singh as Smt. Sukhwant Kaur had already been impleaded as his legal representative and that being so there is no question of impleading Smt. Sukhwant Kaur as an independent party in the suit originally filed by Raunaq Singh. On this short ground alone, the order dated February3, 1997 passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. So far as the application of Smt. Sukhwant Kaur for being transposed as plaintiff is concerned, that is without any merit. She has already been impleaded as L. Rs. of Raunaq Singh, plaintiff, and being L.R. of Raunaq Singh, plaintiff, she can easily safeguard her interest being his L.R. No question of transposing her as a plaintiff arises after she has been impleaded as L.R. of Raunaq Singh, plaintiff, in this case.
5. For the reasons recorded above, Civil Revision No. 1243 of 1997 is allowed and the order dated February 3, 1997 passed by the trial Court is set aside, while Civil Revision No. 3996 of 1999 filed by the Sukhwant Kaur is dismissed. However, there shall no order as to costs.