( 2026:HHC:6746 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 740 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 Preeto Devi (deceased) through LRs ...Petitioners. Versus Balwinder Singh and others ...Respondents. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate, __________________________________________________ Romesh Verma , Judge (oral) The present petition arises out of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. dated 19.09.2025, whereby application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under order 22 Rule 3 CPC for bringing on record legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, Smt. Preeto Devi @ Pritma Devi was partly allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Preeto Devi @ Pritma Devi filed a suit for vacant possession against her own son, namely, Balwinder Singh, in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Indora, District Kangra, H.P. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff, Smt. Preeto Devi, had 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:6746 ) expired on 22.10.2024, which is revealed from the application filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for bringing on record the said legal heirs of deceased. 3. The application preferred by the petitioners/ applicants revealed that after the death of plaintiff Smt. Preeto Devi, on the basis of a Will executed by the deceased Smt. Preeto Devi on 05.03.2020, the following legal representative were required to be brought on record: i) Babhishan Singh, S/O Smt. Preeto Devi @ Pritma Devi (ii) Urmila Devi, W/o Sh. Babhishan Singh (iii) Udey Pathania, S/O Sh. Babhishan Singh (iv) Nahar Pathania, S/O Sh. Babhishan Singh 4. The said application was vehemently contested by the respondent, wherein the execution of the Will was specifically refuted. It was averred that the Will in question has already been challenged by the defendant before the same Court in a case titled Balwinder Singh Vs. Udey Pathania and the same is pending for filing of written statement. 5. After perusing of the contents of the application and the reply, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion 3 ( 2026:HHC:6746 ) that the deceased, Smt. Preeto Devi, expired on 22.10.2024 and is survived by her sons, namely, Babhishan, Balwinder, Surinder, Jagbhushan and Narinder Singh. 6. Therefore, the learned Trial Court partly allowed the application to the extent that Babhishan Singh, son of deceased Preeto Devi, was required to be brought on record. However, the prayer for impleading the other applicants, namely, Urmila Devi, Udey Pathania and Nahar Pathania was rejected. 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff has approached this Court, assailing the order dated 19th September 2025, passed by learned Civil Judge, Indora, District Kangra, HP 8. Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the impugned order as passed by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. According to him, since the deceased, Smt. Preeto Devi, has executed a valid Will in favour of her son, namely, Babhishan Singh and his wife Smt. Urmila Devi and her two grand son Mr. Uday Pathania and Mr. Nahar Pathania (minor), therefore, on the basis of the said Will the proposed applicants were required to be arrayed as party plaintiffs. 4 ( 2026:HHC:6746 ) 9. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents assisted by Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate, defended the order as passed by learned trial Court and submitted that learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 11. The precise case of the petitioners is that after the death of late Smt. Preeto, W/o Dhurav Singh, the legal representatives of the deceased are required to be substituted by her son Babhishan Singh, his wife Smt. Urmila Devi and the two grand children on the basis of the Will. It is further the case of the petitioners that all the sons are not required to be arrayed as the party plaintiffs since Balwinder Singh is already defendant in the proceedings. 12. The learned Trial Court has rightly held that the question regarding the Will is already under adjudication before the very same Court in case titled Balwinder Singh vs Udey Pathania and the validity of the Will has to be separately decided by the competent Court of law. 5 ( 2026:HHC:6746 ) 13. Moreover, in the proceedings under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC, the execution and the validity of the Will cannot be adjudicated. The learned Trial Court has rightly held that all the sons of late Smt. Preeto Devi are necessary and proper parties and they are required to be arrayed as the party in the proceedings. 14. In the opinion of this Court, there is no infirmity in the order as passed by the learned Trial Court and the Court below has rightly passed the order. 15. There is another issue regarding the validity of a Will which cannot be determined in the similar proceedings while deciding an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC. 16. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stands disposed off. (Romesh Verma) Judge March 10, 2026 (Nisha)