C.R. No. 142 of 2007 (O&M) --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 142 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.2.2009 Khazan Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Shiv Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, advocate for the respondents. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated November 21, 2006 passed by the learned Court below whereby in an application filed by respondent No.6 Birpal Singh under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit, was allowed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondents No.1 to 5 claiming themselves to be co-owners in possession of part of Khewat. It was with the allegation that the respondents/some of co-owners were interfering in the possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by respondent No.6 Birpal Singh for being impleaded as party with the contention that in the suit the injunction is prayed for qua possession of Khasra No.1443 whereas the property forming part of that Khasra number was sold by Des Raj and Singh Raj sons of Smt. Shanti to respondent No. 6 vide registered sale deed dated April 5, 2004 and he is in possession of the land thereafter. It is on account of this fact that he is interested party in the suit. The application having been allowed by the learned Court below, the petitioner/plaintiffs are before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was a simple suit for injunction filed by the petitioners in which no relief as such has been claimed against respondent No.6 and the application was filed when the suit was at the stage of arguments. The application at that stage could not have been allowed. He further submitted that even no relief has been claimed against respondent No.6 even if a decree is passed, the same will not bind the respondent No.6. C.R. No. 142 of 2007 (O&M) --2-- On the other hand learned counsel for respondents submitted that having come to know about the filing of the suit where the claim for injunction was made with regard to the property owned and possessed by him he certainly is a necessary party. He further submitted that though in the khewat admittedly number of other co-sharers were there but for the reasons best known to the petitioners that they had not included all of them as a party. There is not contest in the suit as all the existing defendants have been proceeded ex-parte. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition. It is evident from the suit filed by the petitioners that prayer for injunction has been made with regard to Khasra No. 1443 claiming that the petitioners/plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land forming part thereof. On the other hand the contention of respondent No.6 is that specific portion of the aforesaid Khasra Number was sold to him by the other co-sharers in the Khewat vide registered sale deed April 5, 2004 and even the possession thereof was also handed over. Once they are in possession of the property they are certainly a necessary party in the suit for injunction filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs as if a decree is passed in his absence the same will certainly effect his rights. Accordingly, I find that respondent No.6 is a necessary party. Learned Court below has rightly impleaded him as one of the defendant. The present revision petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 12.2.2009 JUDGE Reema