Civil Revision No. 2101 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2101 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 28th January, 2010 Gilco Valley ........Petitioner Versus Harkirat Kaur and others ........Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. G.S.Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mr. Shubhjyot Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.(Oral) In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 13.02.2009(Annexure P-8) vide which the petitioner has been ordered to be impleaded as respondent-defendant No. 5 in the suit filed by respondent no. 1 against respondent nos. 2 to 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff- respondent no. 1 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she was owner in joint possession of 1/5th share in the suit land and Civil Revision No. 2101 of 2009(O&M) 2 all the defendants also had 1/5 th share each in that land. An application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure(for short, the Code) had been filed in the suit which was dismissed by the trial Court. It was thereafter, defendant- respondent Nos. 3 to 5 sold 29 kanals 16 marlas out of the suit land to the petitioner vide sale deed dated 17.01.2006. Plaintiff- respondent No. 1 filed another suit for declaration claiming that the said sale deed dated 17.01.2006 was illegal and deserved to be set aside. However, after filing of the written statement by the petitioner, the said suit was withdrawn without liberty to file fresh suit vide order dated 27.10.2007(Annexure P-7). Thereafter, in the earlier suit, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code was filed by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 for impleading the petitioner as a party-respondent. On notice of the application, the same was allowed, necessitating the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the instant revision petition for setting aside that order. Along with Civil Misc. No. 29344-CII of 2009, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 has filed two affidavits dated 20.11.2009, of Harkirat Kaur and Satwant Singh attorney of Harbhajan Kaur. Para 4 of the affidavit of Harkirat Kaur reads as under:- “That the deponent does not have any objection in case the present revision petition is allowed subject to the condition that her 20% share and 20% share of her sister(respondent Civil Revision No. 2101 of 2009(O&M) 3 No.2/defendant No.1) is protected i.e. respondents No. 3 to 5(defendants No. 2 to 4) undertake not to dispose of their above said 40% share of the total suit land in the remaining suit land during the pendency of the civil suit” Learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 5(defendant nos. 2 to 4), states that his clients shall not alienate the share of respondent no. 1 and her sister Harbhajan Kaur in the remaining suit land which comes to 40% of the total land, during the pendency of the civil suit. It has further been stated by learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 3 to 5 that in view of the above back-drop, they have no objection in case the revision petition is allowed and the order impugned herein, is set aside. In view of the above, the order dated 13.02.2009, impugned herein is set aside and the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. [AJAY KUMAR MITTAL] JUDGE 28th January, 2010 Shivani Kaushik