ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed to assail the order passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Seonda, District Datia, on 2.2.2017 allowing an application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC to implead brothers of the deceased as respondents No.3 and 4 only on the ground that plaintiff has expressed no objection to such impleadment. 2. This petition has been filed by defendant No.1 before the trial Court on the ground that she is wife of Late Shri Sukhnandan Rajawat. There is a Will in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Suit has been filed by minor son of one of the persons, who has been sought to be impleaded as respondent, through his mother. In the suit, there is no such pleading as is mentioned in the application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC. In the application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC it is mentioned that since defendant No.1 was responsible for murder/suicide of her husband and was either murderer or abettor, she is not entitled to reap the benefits of the Will in terms of the provisions contained in section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, and therefore, for that half portion of the property which has been left by deceased Sukhnandan, applicants/respondents No.2 and 3 will be entitled being legal heirs of class I. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such application is not maintainable and unless and until present petitioner is convicted by the Court of competent criminal jurisdiction, it cannot be presumed that petitioner is a murderer or abettor and in fact a conspiracy has been hatched by the applicants who had moved application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC to deprive this widow of all the benefits in the estate of the deceased. Therefore, in view of such submissions, it is prayed that application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC has been allowed on surmises and conjectures and with a purpose to deliberately defeat the interest of defendant No.1 i.e. the present petitioner and delay the proceedings so that defendant No.1/widow of deceased Sukhnandan Rajawat may not get any benefit and fruits arising out of the Will. 4. 4. After hearing the arguments of the parties and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that provisions contained in section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act will not come into play unless and until petitioner is held guilty of charges of murder and abetting suicide. Therefore, there is no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC has been rightly allowed so that legal heirs of first degree may apportion the share of the present petitioner on she being declared ineligible to the suit property. This Court is also of the opinion that merely because of consent of the plaintiff, application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC could not have been allowed on hypothetical ground inasmuch as the pleading of the respondents being that in case defendant No.1 is held to be ineligible in terms of the provisions contained in section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, they will become entitled to her share in the property being legal heirs of first degree is too hypothetical and technical at the present stage. As has been held above, unless and until defendant No.1 is convicted, no such application could have been moved or filed by the applicants under Order 1 rule 10 CPC. Trial Court has erred in not recording a specific finding as to how the applicants were necessary or proper parties to the suit. It is also to be observed that there is no pleading or theory of murder and conspiracy in the suit which has been filed by a minor who is son of one of the authors of the application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC and in absence of there being any such pleading in the suit, contrary pleading could not have been put forth by the applicants so to delay the suit. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, trial Court has wrongly allowed application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC, and, therefore, petition deserves to be and is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and quashed.