CR No.6964 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No.6964 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.08.2010 Rashpal Singh ....Petitioner Versus Harbhajan Singh and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents. ... Alok Singh, J. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.10.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Baba Bakala, whereby the trial Court rejected the application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as one of the defendants. Brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff has filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land measuring 51 kanals 10 CR No.6964 of 2009 2 marlas. An application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was moved by the petitioner to implead him as one of the defendants on the ground that he is co-sharer in possession of suit land and he has given the same to defendant No.1 on lease (theka) since the petitioner is residing in England. In the case of Rahul Vs. Kewal Krishan, 2007(1) PLJ 464, the learned Single Judge of this Court in paragraph 6 has held as under: - “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from patent illegality and irregularity. The mere fact that Dev Raj is a co-owner with Kewal Krishan, is not a ground on the basis of which the said applicant can be impleaded as defendant in a suit for permanent injunction or mandatory injunction. The plaintiff has a dominant litus. He has a right to choose the parties against whom he seek injunction. The mere fact that the applicant is a co-sharer is not a ground on the basis of which he can be impleaded as defendant, moreso when it is not his case that his other cosharer is acting contrary to his interest and his interest is contrary to the interest of other co-owner.” In the opinion of this Court, the plaintiff has a dominant litus and he has the right to choose the party against whom he seeks injunction. In a suit for injunction, ordinarily co-sharer has no right to seek impleadment. Moreover, in the impugned order, the trial Court has observed that any judgement passed in the suit shall be in persona and the applicant shall not be bound by any finding and observations recorded therein. In view of this, I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the CR No.6964 of 2009 3 order impugned, refusing to implead the petitioner as one of the defendants in the pending civil suit. Petition is devoid of merit and hence, is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 12.08.2010 sk.