C.R. No.1449 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1449 of 2010 Date of decision : March 04, 2010 Amit Kukreja ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present : Mr. Arvind Rajotia, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Amit Kukreja has filed the instant Civil Revision under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 08.12.2009 (Annexure P/4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, whereby application moved by the petitioner for being impleaded as defendant to the suit instituted by respondent No.1 against respondents No.2 to 4 has been dismissed. Respondent No.1 has filed suit for permanent injunction against respondents No.2 to 4, restraining them from encroaching upon 18 feet wide road and parking place shown with red colour in the site plan situated in shopping centre, B-Block, Model Town, C.R. No.1449 of 2010 -2- Hisar. Mandatory injunction has also been sought for giving demarcation and possession of the shop to the respective purchasers. The petitioner in his application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleged that the petitioner is a property dealer and citizen of Hisar and his office is situated near the disputed place and he uses the aforesaid road of 18 feet width and therefore he is necessary party to the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the defendants intimated the petitioner under the Right to Information Act that the map prepared by the PWD(B&R) Department was not available with the office, but now the defendants are producing some forged site plan in evidence in the Court. The contention has no relevance. It would not depict that the petitioner is proper and necessary party to the suit. The contention is also devoid of merit because the aforesaid information Annexure P/6 has been supplied by the Tehsildar (Sales), Hisar, respondent No.4. However, the appropriate authority with which the said map could be available is PWD(B&R) which prepared the map. Respondent No.3 is Executing Engineer of PWD(B&R), but no such information was sought by the petitioner from respondent No.3. The petitioner sought information from a wrong quarter and was, therefore, rightly told that the map was not available with the Tehsildar (Sales), from where the C.R. No.1449 of 2010 -3- information was sought. It would not mean that the map was not available at all with any authority. The application moved by the petitioner has been rightly dismissed, being completely frivolous and without any merit. The petitioner is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. The petitioner also does not have his office in the shopping centre in question for which the road in dispute and parking space are said to have been left. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed in limine, being devoid of any merit. (L.N. Mittal) March 04, 2010 Judge vcgarg