Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The petitioners are the minor daughters of one Tejinder Singh. Their applications filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as parties in the civil suit filed on behalf of Sat Narain plaintiff-respondent has been rejected by the learned trial Court vide orders dated January 11, 2003 and September 25, 2003. The petitioners have impugned the aforesaid orders through the present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Plaintiff Sat Narain has filed a suit against one Tejinder Singh-defendant for specific performance of an agreement dated February 12, 1996. The aforesaid civil suit is pending before the learned Trial Court. The whereabouts of aforesaid Tejinder Singh are not known and as such he could not be served in the suit through the ordinary process. He was ordered to be served through substituted service. Thereafter he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated August 8, 2001. 3. The present petitioners are the daughters of aforesaid defendant-Tejinder Singh. They filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code before the learned trial Court for being impleaded as parties to the civil case filed by Sat Narain. It was stated in the aforesaid application that Tejinder Singh was suffering from some mental sickness and had gone away from the house. His whereabouts were not known. He had not returned to the house for the last three years. On that basis, the applicants-petitioners claimed that they were interested persons for contesting the suit filed against Tejinder Singh. Accordingly they prayed for their impleadment as parties to the suit. 4. The learned trial Court vide order dated January 11, 2003 dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the applicant-petitioner. It was observed that since a period of seven years had not elapsed, therefore, there was no presumption that aforesaid Tejinder Singh has died. On that basis it was held that the applicants could not be impleaded as parties to the suit. 5. Later on, another application was filed by the applicants. In this application it was averred by the applicants that wife of Tejinder Singh, viz. Rita Devi on her own behalf and on behalf of present minors had earlier filed a suit for maintenance under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The aforesaid suit is still pending for final disposal. 5. Later on, another application was filed by the applicants. In this application it was averred by the applicants that wife of Tejinder Singh, viz. Rita Devi on her own behalf and on behalf of present minors had earlier filed a suit for maintenance under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The aforesaid suit is still pending for final disposal. In the aforesaid civil suit the application of the aforesaid petitioners for the grant of interim maintenance had been allowed. On that basis, it was claimed by the applicants that since decreeing of the present suit for specific performance against Tejinder Singh would necessarily affect the rights of the minors and their claim for maintenance, therefore, they were necessary parties to the suit. Even this application filed by the applicants has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated September 25, 2003. 6. The applicants have impugned both the orders dated January 11, 2003 and September 25, 2003 by filing the present petition. 7. I have heard Shri Suresh Monga, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Arun Jain, the learned counsel appearing for Sat Narain-plaintiff and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 8. Shri Suresh Monga, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the applicants are the minors. Admittedly, they are the daughters of Tejinder Singh-defendant. According to the learned counsel, the whereabouts of aforesaid Tejinder Singh are not known and since he was suffering from a mental sickness, therefore, he had gone away from the house. According to the learned counsel, the applicants are vitally interested in protecting the estate of Tejinder Singh and are also interested in preserving his property so that their right to claim maintenance in the same is not affected. On that basis, it is argued that the petitioners are necessary parties to be impleaded in the suit. 9. On the other hand, Shri Arun Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent has argued that as per their own showing, Tejinder Singh had gone away from the house only three years back. According to the learned counsel, in such a situation no presumption with regard to the death of aforesaid Tejinder Singh could be raised. 9. On the other hand, Shri Arun Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent has argued that as per their own showing, Tejinder Singh had gone away from the house only three years back. According to the learned counsel, in such a situation no presumption with regard to the death of aforesaid Tejinder Singh could be raised. In these circumstances, it is argued by Shri Jain that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties to the civil suit for specific performance filed by plaintiff-Sat Narain. Shri Jain has, on that basis, defended the two orders passed by the learned trial Court. 10. Certain facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the applicants are the minor daughters of Tejinder Singh. It is also apparent from the perusal of the record that they had already approached the civil court and have filed a suit claiming maintenance against Tejinder Singh. Their prayer for grant of interim maintenance had been allowed by the civil Court in that suit. The aforesaid maintenance has to be claimed by them from the estate of Tejinder Singh. It is also apparent from the facts of the case that whereabouts of Tejinder Singh are not known. He could not be served in the ordinary manner. His whereabouts are not known and as such the trial Court had to take recourse to the provisions of Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code for effecting substituted service on him. Even after the aforesaid substituted service was effected, Tejinder Singh did not, appear. Accordingly, he was ordered to be proceeded exparte. Thus, it is apparent that the suit against Tejinder Singh and his estate is proceeding undefended. The applicants are definitely such persons who are interested in perseverance of the estate of aforesaid Tejinder Singh. Besides their persona! interest, on account of some maintenance proceedings in the suit, and the interim maintenance granted in their favour, they being the daughters have an inherent right to preserve the estate if Tejinder Singh. Accordingly, it could not be held at all that the applicants were not necessary or proper parties to the suit. 11. Besides their persona! interest, on account of some maintenance proceedings in the suit, and the interim maintenance granted in their favour, they being the daughters have an inherent right to preserve the estate if Tejinder Singh. Accordingly, it could not be held at all that the applicants were not necessary or proper parties to the suit. 11. In almost identical circumstances, this court in the case of Gurdeep Kaur v. Vi-nod Kumar Lamba and Anr., (1994-2) 107 P.L.R. 185 has observed as follows: "The fact that whereabouts of Pritam Singh were not known, as referred to above, were not even disputed by the respondent-landlord. In fact in his own application for serving Pritam Singh through substituted service it was clearly averred that his whereabouts were not known. Learned Rent Controller also in his order dated July 30, 1991 had mentioned that even though it was stated in para 2 of the application that some other persons were running the shop in place of Pritam Singh, no person had been mpleaded as party in this case for the reasons best known to the petitioner. Viewed in the light of the events quoted above as also the pleadings of the parties as also provisions of the C.P.C. as referred to above and order of Rent Controller dated July 30, 1991, it could not be said that Gurdeep Kaur was neither a necessary nor a proper party." 12. Under these circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that applicants are necessary parties to the suit filed by Sat Narain-respondent No. 1. 13. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and the orders dated January 11, 2003 and September 25, 2003 passed by the learned trial Court are set aside. The applicants are ordered to be impleaded as parties to the civil suit filed by Sat Narain. On such impleadment, the applicants shall have a right to file written statement and contest the suit on merit in accordance with law. Thereafter the learned trial Court shall frame issues and the plaintiff would be required to lead his evidence afresh, if al ready led by him. 14. No costs.