. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1228 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: May 26, 2011. Param Partap Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Sewa Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Khunger, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. A.S.Virk, Advocate for respondent No.4. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 21.10.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Jalandhar vide which application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed. CR No.1228 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, a suit for recovery of mesne profits being value of crops from Hari 1981 to Sauni 1983 and from Hari 1984 to Sauni 2005 of land measuring 33 Kanals 12 Marlas situated in village Mehatpur Tehsil Nakodar District Jalandhar was filed by respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs against respondent No.4/defendant. During pendency of the suit, the property in dispute was exchanged by plaintiffs with the grandfather of present petitioner i.e. Gurmukh Singh @Gura on 11.10.2000. In view of the exchange Gurmukh Singh @Gura executed sale deed in favour of the present petitioner and hence, after execution of sale deed in his favour, he has become owner of the property in dispute. Admitted facts are that, the present suit is for recovery of mesne profits of the property in dispute upto Sauni 2005. Whereas, the present petitioner has allegedly acquired rights in the land in dispute on 31.01.2007. It has also been mentioned by learned trial Court that the sale deed was also executed on behalf of Gurmukh Singh @Gura, who died on 02.04.2006 i.e. much prior of execution of sale deed. It is a case of petitioner himself that he purchased the property in dispute on 31.01.2007. Hence, learned trial Court has rightly observed that he has nothing to do with the recovery of mesne profits from the property prior to that regarding which suit was filed by respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs. Respondents-plaintiffs already suffered a statement before learned trial Court withdrawing the suit and in 2 CR No.1228 of 2010 view of their statement the suit was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn by learned trial Court vide impugned order. In view of these facts, learned trial Court has rightly declined the request of present petitioner for being substituted in place of plaintiffs to pursue the present case. Hence, in view of aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 26, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3