2025:UHC:11456 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CLR No. 131 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. The instant civil revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Roorkee, District Dehradun in O.S. No. 04 of 2022 ‘Anuradha Sharma vs. Arun Kumar’, whereby, the Trial Court allowed the application paper no. 28x1/1 to 28x1/2 filed by the respondent no. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC and reject the objection of the revisionist i.e. paper no 33x2 filed by the revisionist. 3. On the previous date learned counsel Mr. Tapan Singh submits that there are chances of amicable settlement and therefore the parties may be directed to join the proceeding through V.C. On this Mr. Tapan Singh was permitted to take steps to serve the respondents through dasti as well but today no one put appearance on behalf of the respondents. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the suit was filed by the revisionist against her own brother for partition bearing O.S. No. 04 of 2022 wherein one person namely Rajkumar S/o Parmanand, who is infact is the father of the revisionistunder Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC that he may be impleaded as one of the defendant. Application is supported with photocopy of the Will executed by the mother of the revisionist in favour of father of revisionist Shri Rajkumar. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the Trial Court committed illegality while allowing the application of respondent no. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC since the original Will was not placed on record and furthermore the Will is not registered. 6. He submits that in the suit filed by the 2025:UHC:11456 present revisionist infact the respondent no. 2 is completely stranger, however he want to intervene by moving an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC on the basis of Will, which is unregistered document and, therefore, the application moved by respondent no. 2 is not maintainable. 7. Be that as it may, admittedly the respondent no. 2 is the biological father of the revisionist and he was permitted to be impleaded only as the defendants and what is the relevancy of the Will this aspect cannot be looked into at this juncture since the same is the subject matter of trial, thus I do not find any illegality and perversity in the order impugned passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (S.D.), Roorkee, Haridwar dated 10.10.2025, however, the revisionist can take all plea during trial. 8. Thus, the instant revision is dismissed being devoid of merit. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 22.12.2025 PR 2025:UHC:11456