C.R. No. 3412 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3412 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2010 Lakhbir Singh .... Petitioner Versus Gurjit Singh and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S. Sullar, Advocate for the respondents 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? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 15.5.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Ambala thereby allowing the impleadment application moved by respondent No. 2 herein. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff- petitioner has filed suit for recovery of possession against the lessee- respondent No. 1 alleging therein that petitioner-plaintiff has become owner/lessor pursuant to the registered gift deed dated 20.9.2005 executed by the applicant (respondent No. 2 herein). In the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against respondent No. 1, applicant-respondent No. 2 herein has moved an application seeking impleadment contending therein that gift deed dated 20.9.2005 has not been executed by the applicant and the gift deed is fabricated one. It has further been contended in the C.R. No. 3412 of 2009 2 impleadment application that civil suit has already been filed challenging the gift deed dated 20.9.2005. Learned trial Court has observed that since petitioner-plaintiff is claiming his title/right of possession pursuant to the gift deed dated 20.9.2005 and gift deed has been strongly denied by the applicant, hence, applicant is necessary/proper party. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Both the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties have fairly stated that civil suit challenging the gift deed dated 20.9.2005 has already been withdrawn. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 states that in the subsequent cases, gift deed is once again under challenge. In a suit by the lessor against the lessee for possession ordinarily third party should not be impleaded. In view of the withdrawal of the suit challenging the gift deed dated 20.9.2005. Applicant-respondent No. 2 seems to be neither proper nor a necessary party. Order impugned can not be sustained in the eyes of law. However, it is clarified that if in other proceedings as alleged by the counsel for the respondent No. 2, gift deed dated 20.9.2005 is not found to be valid and genuine, respondent No. 2 shall have every right to obtain possession from the petitioner if present suit is ultimately decreed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (ALOK SINGH) 14.10.2010 JUDGE reena