JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.10.2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court'). 2. The facts succinctly stated are that the respondent No.3 Babulal filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking possession of the disputed premises from respondents Nos. l, 2 and late Pema Devi W/o Shri Khemaram. 3. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.3 Smt. Pema Devi passed away, for which cause title of the plaint was ordered to be amended and Smt. Pema Devi was shown as deceased, keeping in view the fact that her sons, namely, Nandlal and Bajranglal, possessed of the property, were already parties to the suit. 4. The said suit filed by the plaintiff Babulal came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff, vide order dated 22.07.2011, where against Nandlal and Babulal (respondents Nos. l and 2 herein) preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the said appeal, present petitioner, being daughter of Pema Devi, filed an application dated 15.01.2019 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking her impleadment. Said application has been rejected by the Appellate Court, vide its order dated 21.10.2019 inter alia observing that in the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the petitioner is not a necessary party. 5. Challenging the order dated 21.10.2019, Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is the daughter of deceased Pema Devi and as such, a necessary party being her legal representative/Class-I heir. He argued that notwithstanding the fact that application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed during the pendency of the suit, came to be disposed of, the petitioner being legal representative of Pema Devi, is a necessary party and hence her application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code ought to have been allowed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the requisite material. 7. Indisputably, the suit in question is a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which is essentially premised on possession. 8. A perusal of the material available on record, clearly shows that the possession of the disputed property was with defendants Nos. l and 2, Nandlal, Bajranglal and deceased Pema Devi. 7. Indisputably, the suit in question is a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which is essentially premised on possession. 8. A perusal of the material available on record, clearly shows that the possession of the disputed property was with defendants Nos. l and 2, Nandlal, Bajranglal and deceased Pema Devi. The petitioner was not at all in possession of the disputed premises. 9. That apart, even in the application dated 15.01.2019, the petitioner has nowhere asserted that she is in possession of the disputed property. Such being the position and having regard to the nature of suit for recovery of possession filed under Section 6 of the Act of Specific Relief Act, 1963, petitioner is neither necessary nor proper party. She cannot be impleaded as a party-defendant, simply because she happens to be an heir of Pema Devi. 10. This Court does not find any illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction in the order dated 21.10.2019, passed by the Appellate Court. 11. The writ petition, so also the stay application are dismissed.