JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.- This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 28-11-2008 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Abohar whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the petitioner as a party has been dismissed. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, respondent No.1 who is father of the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner of the suit land left by Smt. Geeta Devi as her sole surviving heir and further for declaration that Will dated 14-2-1971 is false and fabricated with a consequential relief by way of decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the said land in any manner by asserting themselves to be the owners of it as legal heirs of late Smt. Geeta Devi on the basis of mutation No.432 sanctioned at the back of the plaintiff on the basis of false and fabricated Will. 3. The petitioner filed an application u/o 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as a party in the aforesaid civil suit. The said application was contested by the respondents who filed separate replies. In those replies, the respondents have stated that the present application has been filed by the petitioner at the instance of plaintiff-respondent Ram Lal Tantia who has not been able to substantiate his case as no evidence worth reliance has been produced on record by him and his evidence was closed by order of the Court and thus this application has been moved by the petitioner who is the son of the plaintiff on false and baseless allegations with a motive of getting the trial reopen which is not permissible in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The trial Court after considering the respective contentions of the parties rejected the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner as under:- “I have considered the respective contentions of learned counsel for parties. 4. The trial Court after considering the respective contentions of the parties rejected the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner as under:- “I have considered the respective contentions of learned counsel for parties. From the perusal of entire pleadings of the parties as well as arguments advanced by the counsel for parties and the perusal of file, I find that the present case is pending since 30-7-1998 and the evidence of both the parties have been completed and the plaintiff, who is the father of the present applicant, have filed the present suit against the defendants for declaration to the effect that he is owner of the land in dispute and he also challenged the will dated 14-2-1971 executed by deceased Geeta Devi, on the basis of which, the mutation has been sanctioned in the names of LRs of the deceased Geeta Devi. The applicant has not convinced his court that he has directly right in the suit property, rather he has alleged that his father has challenged the will and have claimed the ownership of the suit land being owner of the property. He can only claim the right from his father, if his father Ram Lal succeeded in claiming the ownership in the suit land. As such, he has failed to establish how he is the necessary party. Moreover, the suit is pending since 30-7-1998 and he has moved the present application on the last stage when suit is fixed for rebuttal and arguments. Accordingly, I find no merit in the application at this stage and the same is accordingly dismissed.” 5. Challenging the aforesaid order of the trial Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the trial Court has wrongly held that petitioner is not a necessary party whereas it is the admitted case of the parties that the property is ancestral property and, therefore, the petitioner is very much necessary to be impleaded as a necessary party. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The petitioner has no direct right in the suit property, rather he is claiming the right to the property through his father. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent on the ground that he is owner of the property in dispute on the basis of inheritance whereas the respondents have set up Will in their favour. 7. The petitioner has no direct right in the suit property, rather he is claiming the right to the property through his father. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent on the ground that he is owner of the property in dispute on the basis of inheritance whereas the respondents have set up Will in their favour. In case, the plaintiff-respondent is able to prove his case, in that eventuality also in his presence, the petitioner cannot claim any right to the property and in case, plaintiff-respondent looses his case and the alleged Will is proved in that case again the petitioner will have no right in the property in dispute. Thus in both ways, the petitioner has no independent right in the suit property and he can claim the right from his father if he succeeds in claiming the ownership in the suit land. Thus petitioner is not a necessary party to the suit. Moreover, the present suit is pending since July, 1998 and the evidence of both the parties have already been completed. From the facts, it seems that the application for impleadment has been filed by the petitioner just to reopen the whole matter. Thus, I find no reasons to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. ------------------