IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.68/2022. Date of Decision: 08th September, 2025. Roshan Lal & Ors. .....Petitioners Versus Kanshi Ram and Ors. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Dhanwanti, Advocate. For the Respondents: Respondent No.1 proceeded against ex parte. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petition has been preferred against impugned order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, HP whereby an application preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 has been allowed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the pleadings appended along with the present petition. 3. The present petitioners were the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court. The petitioners had preferred a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction. In the suit so filed, the plaintiffs claimed right in suit the land along with the sole defendant (respondent No.1), based on the fact that one Sh. Mahant Ram i.e. their grand-father owned the suit property 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 and on his demise the plaintiffs along with the respondent No.1(Defendant) succeeded to the same. Challenge in the same was to a Will, made by the petitioners’ grandfather i.e. Mahant Ram in favour of respondent No.1-Kanshi Ram. 4. Suffice it to state that respondent No.1, had taken a categorical stand that a Will had been executed in his favour by his father i.e. late Sh. Mahant Ram on 26.07.1995 and the same had been made after a revocation deed Ex. P2, whereby the previous Will dated 01.01.1994 made by his father late Sh. Mahant Ram had been set aside. From a perusal of the application filed seeking impleadment by respondent No.2 and 3, it is evident that they are seeking a right in the suit land based on a Will executed in their favour on 01.10.1994 qua which the revocation deed Ex. P2 is stated to have been made. 5. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, vide impugned order, the District Judge, Bilaspur was of the view that respondents No.2 and 3 were necessary parties to the lis inter se the present petitioners/plaintiffs and respondent No.1/defendant No.1. Further the learned District Judge was of the view that since respondent No.1/defendant No.1 had led evidence to the effect that the Will set up by respondents No.2 and 3 dated 01.10.1994 had been revoked by late Sh. Mahant Ram, vide revocation deed Ex.P2, the same would not estop respondents No.2 and 3 to plead the same (Will) because there is no admission on the part of respondents No.2 and 3 that Will dated 01.10.1994 had been revoked. 3 6. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to refer to the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in 1992 (2) SCC 524, titled Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others, wherein the test for impleading a party to a lis has been stated in the following terms:- 14………….”The Test if ‘May the order for which the plaintiff is asking directly affect the intervener in the enjoyment of his legal rights’.” 6. In the case at hand qua the suit property the, present petitioners/plaintiffs have prayed for a declaration and injunction. By way of declaration the petitioners/plaintiffs have raised a challenge to Will dated 26.07.1995 alleged to have been made by late Sh. Mahant Ram in favour of respondent No.1. In the aforesaid circumstances, respondent No.1 claiming Will dated 26.07.1995 to be the last and valid Will of late Sh. Mahant Ram has placed and proved on record Ex.P2 i.e. a revocation deed, which pertains to revocation of Will dated 01.10.1994 made in favour of respondents No.2 and 3, who by moving an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC had sought impleadment in the lis pending inter se the present petitioners/plaintiffs and respondent No.1/sole defendant. 7. In my considered view, in order to effectively adjudicate qua the suit property, the presence of respondents No.2 and 3 is necessary. As the legal right of respondents No.2 and 3 on account of an adjudication with respect to the revocation deed 4 Ex.P2 pertaining to Will dated 01.10.1994 alleged to have been made by late Sh. Mahant Ram in favour of respondents No.2 and 3 in the lis pending inter se the petitioners and respondent No.1/Defendant No.1, would be directly effected. Thereby satisfying the ‘Test’ laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others (supra). 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, order passed on 26.04.2022, by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, HP is upheld. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 18.09.2025. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 08th September 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)