CR No.4559 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.4559 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 28.10.2009 **** Krishan Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. Municipal Counsil, Hansi and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Parveen Hans, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Raman B.Garg, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Pankaj Maini, Advocate for respondent No.2 **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed by the petitioner- plaintiff against the order dated 20.05.2009, whereby, the application moved by respondent No.2 under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for his impleadment as a party- defendant in the pending Civil Suit, has been allowed. (2). The controversy pertains to a piece of land measuring 178.94 sq.yards situated near Haji Sarai Hansi, admittedly owned by the respondent-Municipal Council, Hansi, which adjoins the house of the petitioner-plaintiff. Respondent No.2 claims himself to be the lessee over that plot. (3). Petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that the Municipal Council is liable to sell that plot to him CR No.4559 of 2009 - 2 - in terms of the Government Circular dated 21.04.1967. On the other hand, the Municipal Council had already recommended the case of sale of the said plot in favour of respondent No.2 (Prem Kumar) and the matter is stated to be under consideration before the Director, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana. (4). Meanwhile, the Municipal Council has re-considered its decision and vide memo dated 27.09.2009, which has been placed on record, the President, Municipal Council, Hansi has informed the Deputy Commissioner that the proposal regarding sale of plot to respondent No.2 may be reconsidered and withdrawn. (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and keeping in view the fact that the Municipal Council is obligated to dispose of its property in a transparent and fair manner to fetch the maximum price and such a decision has now been taken by the Municipality, it would be in public interest that the Civil Court decides the controversy in presence of both t he claimants. (6). No interference with the impugned order, therefore, is called for. However, it is clarified that if the Municipality has already filed its written statement, it shall be at liberty to seek amendment thereto. CR No.4559 of 2009 - 3 - (7). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 28.10.2009 vishal shonkar