JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The above captioned three writ petitions arise out of the three separate yet identical orders passed on the same date, i.e. 26.07.2016, whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar has rejected petitioners application, seeking their impleadment in the three civil suits filed by the plaintiff-Jagdish Singh. 2. As all the three writ petitions involve common question of facts and law, the same are being decided by this common order, however, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11231/2017 are being taken into consideration. 3. The plaintiff-Jagdish Singh filed a suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 04.09.2015 alleging it to be got executed fraudulently. In the said suit, the petitioners, being daughter and son of the plaintiff-Jagdish Singh filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as plaintiffs. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide its order impugned dated 26.07.2016 has rejected the petitioners' application by observing that the petitioners-applicants, being Paramjeet Kaur and Amritpal Singh are the daughter and son respectively of the plaintiff-Jagdish Singh, whose interests cannot be said to be separate than the interest of the plaintiff. 5. Mr. Himmat Jagga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, challenging the order dated 26.07.2016 submitted that the petitioners are having interest in the property in question, for which, they are necessary and proper party. 6. Having considered the arguments advanced at Bar by Mr. Jagga and upon perusal of the record of this case, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned dated 26.07.2017. 7. Petitioners are merely daughter and son of the plaintiff, who is already pursuing the suit for enforcement of his rights. Petitioners have neither any conflict nor independent interest. Petitioners' impleadment in the suit is thus unwarranted. 8. This Court in its judgment dated 03.10.2017 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11782/2017 titled as Udai Lal and Others vs. Shyam Lal and Others, has rejected identical contention raised by the said petitioners, while observing as under:- "The reasons for which the sale deeds under consideration have been challenged is that sale deed of the subject land has been fraudulently got executed; for which the presence of the petitioners cannot be said to be necessary. It is not in dispute that the sale deeds in question were executed or got executed by the plaintiffs' father. The plaintiffs have not challenged the same on the ground that Nathu, their father had no right to alienate the ancestral property dehors their rights. In the aforesaid factual background, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties in the present case. The petitioners presence even for supporting the cause of the plaintiffs is uncalled for. Test to determine as to whether an applicant is necessary party is that. The rights of the applicant is likely to be adversely or pre-judicially effected; if the suit is decreed, and not that if the suit is dismissed. In other words if an applicant's rights are likely to be adversely affected, as a result of decreeing the suit, he can be impleaded as a party, not otherwise. Coming to the judgment of this Court rendered in Baijnath (supra), it is to be noticed that the applicant therein being Legal representative sought her impleadement as a defendant in place of the deceased defendant Ram Dayal. In such situation, this Court has held that the rights of the said applicant-petitioner were likely to be adversely effected and hence she was held to be a necessary party. The other judgment cited by the petitioner in case of Gram Panchayat, Garhi vs. Dharamvir and Others, reiterated the basic principle governing the adjudication of application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case, which are peculiar. In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court and the writ petition filed by the petitioners is therefore dismissed." 9. In view of the discussion above and following the judgment aforesaid, the present writ petitions are also dismissed. 10. One copy of this order be placed in record of each of the cases.