C.R. No. 4898 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4898 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 28, 2009 Narinder Singh and another …..Petitioners Vs. Dhira Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated November 26, 2008 by virtue of which an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioners to be impleaded as party in a suit filed by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2 has been dismissed. The petitioners claim that they are shareholders and in possession of specific khasra No.216 in the area of 4 kanals 17 marlas as per the jamabandi for the year 2004-05. The trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that no relief has been claimed C.R. No. 4898 of 2009 [2] by the plaintiff- Dhira against the petitioners as he does not apprehend any threat to his possession. Counsel for the petitioners submits that defendant- respondent No.2 is not contesting the case as such plaintiff-Dhira will be able to get a decree regarding a portion which is, as per entry in jamabandi for the year 2004-05 is shown to be in possession of area of 4 kanals 17 marlas in khasra No.216. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the revenue record and the impugned order. The suit of respondent No.1 against respondent No.2 is a suit for permanent injunction. Plaintiff- respondent No.1 has stated in the plaint that he has become owner on the basis of sale deed dated May 26, 1994 and that he is in possession as per jamabandi for the year 2004-05. A perusal of annexure P-7, Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 reflects that respondent No.2 defendant-Sheero in the capacity as shareholder had sold 26/27th share in favour of Dhira, Jagat Singh and Massa Singh, whereas Lakhbir Singh and others including Sheero are shown to be the co-owners of 4 kanals 17 marlas of land in khasra No.216. Name of petitioner Narinder Singh, no doubt appears in the list of the co-owners in the remarks column and Naranjan Singh has been shown to have been delivered the possession by one of the co-sharer Bali Singh. No other document had been placed on record indicating that co- sharer Bali Singh was in exclusive possession of the specific khasra numbers. Even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that the petitioners are in actual physical possession of specific khasra numbers, no C.R. No. 4898 of 2009 [3] relief has been claimed qua the petitioners by Dhira Singh. In case Dhira Singh is able to get any injunction order against Sheero, on the basis of a collusive decree, the said judgment will not, in any manner, affect the rights and interests of the petitioners. Since no relief has been sought for by the plaintiff against the petitioners, the trial Court has rightly observed that the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper party. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. August 28, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE