JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - Defendant No.1 Rupesh Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 05.03.2012 Annexure P-6 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali thereby allowing application Annexure P-4 moved by Harjit Kaur respondent No.4 herein for impleading her as party to the suit along with all other class I heirs of deceased Bakhshish Singh. 2. Suit has been filed by respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs against defendant No.1/petitioner who are all sons of Bakhshish Singh. Suit against defendant No.2/respondent No.3- Assistant Estate Officer stands dismissed as withdrawn. The dispute relates to inheritance of the suit property from Bakhshish Singh father of the parties. Plaintiffs alleged Will dated 13.10.1989 whereas defendant No.1-petitioner set up two Wills dated 08.10.1993 and 08.06.1994 allegedly executed by their father Bakhshish Singh. 3. Respondent No.4 Harjit Kaur is daughter of Bakhshish Singh and sister of original parties to the suit. Harjit Kaur moved application Annexure P-4 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, ‘CPC’) alleging that she being one of the seven class I heirs of Bakhshish Singh as 1/7 share in the suit property as Bakhshish Singh died intestate, leaving behind widow Mohinder Kaur, three sons i.e. plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and three daughters i.e. Harjit Kaur, Balwinder Kaur and Dhanwant Kaur. Accordingly respondent No.4 alleged that all the aforesaid class I heirs including herself are necessary and proper party to the suit. It was accordingly prayed that all of them be impleaded as party to the suit. 4. Defendant No.1 resisted the application by filing reply Annexure P-5. It was alleged that the application has been filed in connivance with plaintiffs to delay the decision of the suit. Relationship of respondent No.4 and other daughters and widow of Bakhshish Singh was not disputed. However, it was pleaded that they are not necessary party to the suit in view of Wills executed by Bakhshish Singh in favour of defendant No.1 as pleaded by him. Plaintiffs practically did not oppose the application Annexure P-4. 5. Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-6 ordered impleadment of Harjit Kaur as well as other daughters and widow of Bakhshish Singh as defendants No.3 to 6 to the suit. Said order is under challenge in the instant revision petition at the hands of defendant No.1. 6. Plaintiffs practically did not oppose the application Annexure P-4. 5. Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-6 ordered impleadment of Harjit Kaur as well as other daughters and widow of Bakhshish Singh as defendants No.3 to 6 to the suit. Said order is under challenge in the instant revision petition at the hands of defendant No.1. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 7. At the outset, it may be mentioned that Mohinder Kaur, Balwinder Kaur and Dhanwant Kaur have also been ordered to be impleaded as party to the suit (in addition to Harjit Kaur respondent No.4), but they have not been impleaded as party to this revision petition. 8. Inheritance of Bakhshish Singh is in dispute in the suit. Plaintiffs have set up Will dated 13.10.1989 whereas defendant nO.1 has set up Wills dated 08.10.1993 and 08.06.1994 allegedly executed by Bakhshish Singh. Admittedly respondent No.4 and two other daughters and widow of Bakhshish Singh are his class I heirs along with plaintiffs and defendant NO.1 being his sons. Consequently inheritance of Bakhshish Singh cannot be effectually and completely adjudicated upon in the absence and behind the back of the three daughters and widow of Bakhshish Singh. They are, therefore, not only proper but necessary parties to the suit. Any adjudication of the Wills set up by plaintiffs and defendant no.1 in the suit without impleading the daughters and widow of Bakhshish Singh would be an exercise in futility. The said adjudication would not be binding on daughters and widow of Bakhshish Singh and, therefore, would give rise to further unnecessary litigation. Complete and effective adjudication can be done only after impleading daughters and widow of Bakhshish Singh as party to the suit. Consequently, it is manifest that they have been rightly ordered to be impleaded as party to the suit by the trial Court by passing impugned order. The said order, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity, much less illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC stipulates that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings order deletion or addition of any person as party to the suit. 9. Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC stipulates that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings order deletion or addition of any person as party to the suit. Person whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit may be ordered to be added under this provision. The case of daughters and widow of Bakhshish Singh squarely falls within the four corners of this provision. Therefore, they have been rightly added as party to the suit. In their absence, the dispute cannot be adjudicated upon effectually and completely. Mere delay in filing of application by respondent No.4 is not sufficient to dismiss the said application in view of specific provision contained in Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC requiring the Court to add any such person as party to the suit at any stage of the proceedings. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed in limine. 11. Since the suit is said to be already eight years old, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible keeping in view its docket. ---------0.B.S.0------------