Civil Revision No.247 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.247 of 2010 Date of decision:03.02.2010. The State of Punjab ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Surinder Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The facts beyond the pale of controversy, and also apparent from the material obtaining on the file, are as under: - The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the private respondent for the possession of the property in suit. In the course of the trial, the Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab filed an application before the learned Trial Court on 18.04.2004 to the effect that the State of Punjab intended to file an application under Order 1 Rule 10, read with Section 151 CPC, for its own impleadment as a party. An adjournment was sought to enable the State of Punjab to have instructions from the higher authorities. That plea (for adjournment for the purpose aforementioned) was declined by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 18.08.2004. The suit came to be decreed, vide judgment and decree dated 23.09.2004 and no application under Order 1 Rule 10, read with Section 151 CPC, came to be filed by the present Civil Revision No.247 of 2010 -2- applicant before the conclusion of the trial. Defendants therein filed an appeal against that judgment and decree. It was before the learned First Appellate Authority that the State of Punjab actually filed a plea under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for its impleadment as a party. That plea of the State was declined by the learned Appellate Authority, vide order dated 29.09.2009. The learned State counsel, who argues that the land in suit had actually been acquired by the State and compensation in respect thereof had been paid to the plaintiff therein who did not make a mention thereof in the pleadings at the trial, is not unmindful of the fact that it would be appropriate for the State to file a suit to obtain invalidation of the impugned judgment and decree. The learned State counsel is further cognizant of the fact that it is in the course of the pleadings that the State shall have to make an averment that the respondent – plaintiff did not, at all, disclose in the course of the pleadings that he had already received compensation in respect of the land in dispute, which stood acquired by the State. In the light of the above facts, the learned State counsel states that this petition may be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the State to file a suit to obtain the invalidation of the impugned judgment and decree. Dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty aforementioned. February 03, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE