IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO 20 of 2010. Decided on May 28, 2010. Paramjit Singh …Petitioner. Versus Ashir Mohammad & others ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, vice Mr. Nitin Mishra, Advocate. For respondent 1 Mr. T.S.Chauhan, Advocate. For respondents 2 to 4 Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral). Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner has filed a suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining respondent No. 1, Ashir Mohammad, from causing any interference in land, bearing Khasra No. 165/137, situated in mauza Amarkot, Tehsil, Paonta Sahib, of which he is a joint owner. Respondents 2 and 3 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, seeking their impleadment, as defendants. They alleged that they were joint owners with petitioner/ plaintiff, Paramjeet Singh, and that they had agreed to sell their shares to respondent Ashir Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Mohammad. They pleaded that by means of the suit, out of which the present petition has arisen, petitioner wanted to deprive them of joint ownership. 3, Petitioner’s suit is for injunction simpliciter, on the ground that he is joint owner, and respondent No. 1, without any right, title and interest, is interfering in his joint possession. He has not sought any relief against his co-owners. As a matter of fact, co-owners, who have been permitted to be impleaded as defendants, on their request, themselves have stated that they have put respondent No. 1 in possession of the suit land, pursuant to an agreement to sell their share in his favour, meaning thereby that they are out of possession. This fact supports the petitioner’s contention that he is not aggrieved by any action of respondents 2 to 4, but is aggrieved by interference caused by respondent No. 1. 3. In view of the above stated position, petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 3.8.2009 of learned trial Court, ordering impleadment of respondents 2, 3 and 4, is set aside. 4. Petition is disposed of accordingly. May 28, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh), J.