CR No.3655 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3655 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.5.2010 Smt. Veerpal Kaur ......Petitioner(s) Versus Balbir Singh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Lal Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 16.4.2010 passed by the trial Court whereby her application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment in the suit has been dismissed. As per averments, the plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 4 filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-respondent No.5 i.e. M/s Wireless T.T. Info. Service Limited to remove the foundation of the Tower Station from the suit land as the same was being constructed without the consent of the plaintiff-respondents. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner moved an application for being impleaded in the suit on the ground that she was a co- sharer in the suit property on the basis of sale deed dated 5.10.2009 executed in her favour and that she had entered into an agreement with the defendant-respondent for installing the telecommunciation tower over the suit land and therefore, she was necessary and proper party for impleadment in the suit. The aforesaid prayer of the petitioner was opposed by the CR No.3655 of 2010 2 plaintiff-respondents on the ground that at the time of filing of the suit, the petitioner was neither owner nor in possession over any portion of the suit land and she had purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated 5.10.2009 and thus, the question of entering into lease and licence agreement by her in favour of defendant does not arise and therefore, she had no right to contest the suit. While rejecting the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner, the trial Court observed as under:- “Before coming to the present application, it is seen that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for mandatory injunction against the defendant for directing the defendant to remove the foundation of the tower station from the land comprised in Khewat No.194, Khatauni No.425, Khasra No.472 area measuring 14 kanals as per revenue record situated within the revenue estate of village Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa. The application has sought her impleadment as party to the suit claiming herself to be co-sharer in the suit land as she purchased 1/5th share in the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 5.10.2009. Admittedly, the suit was filed on 12.9.2009 and on that day the applicant was not a co-sharer in the suit land. Further no relief has been sought by the plaintiff against the applicant Veerpal Kaur, who has prayed for impleading her as party to the suit. No relief has been claimed by the plaintiff against her. So, the applicant is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. So, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC moved by applicant is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed with no CR No.3655 of 2010 3 order as to costs.” I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and the averments made in this petition. The impleadment in the suit has been sought by the petitioner simply on the ground that she had become co-sharer in the suit land vide sale deed dated 5.10.2009 and therefore, she has a right to be impleaded as a party. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has purchased a specific share or she was in exclusive possession of the land over which the communication tower was being constructed. Moreover, no relief is claimed against her and she was not a co-owner/co-sharer on the date of filing of the suit. In this view of the matter, I find no error of jurisdiction by the trial Court while passing the impugned order. Dismissed. May 27, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE