IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.296 of 2011. Decided on: October 17,2011. Maya Dutt Attri …….Petitioner. Versus Lekh Ram and another …….Respondents. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Y.Paul, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Anil Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice V.K. Ahuja, J.(oral): Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/defendant against the order, dated 30.11.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., vide which the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed and one Brij Mohan was ordered to be impleaded as defendant No.2. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. The suit was filed for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction by the plaintiff/respondent in regard to Khasra Nos.61 and 62 impeading one Maya Dutt as defendant. The plaintiff 2 filed the present application to implead Brij Mohan son of Maya Dutt, defendant, on the ground that while raising construction over his own adjoining Khasra No.60, he has also encroached upon the suit land comprised in Khasra Nos.61 and 62. Therefore, the plaintiff had filed the application to implead the said Brij Mohan son of Maya Dutt as a defendant, which was allowed by the learned trial Court. 5. It is clear from the assertions made in the application that the application was filed to implead the son of the defendant as a party so that an effective decree can be passed in case the suit is decreed for the relief of permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction. The defendant’s son may in future claim that he has raised the construction over the suit land and to avoid any complication, the present application was filed by the respondent/plaintiff, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was allowed rightly by the learned trial Court. It is no ground to reject the application that the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed. Moreover, the defendant has been duly compensated by imposing costs of ` 1000/- at the time of allowing the application. 6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 3 14.11.2011. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court forthwith by the Registry alongwith the records of the case, so as to reach well before the date fixed. 7. In view of the final disposal of the main petition, the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. October 17, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.