CR No.3589 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3589 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.7.2009 Manoj Kumar and others ......Petitioners Versus Dinesh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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: Shri Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 19.3.2009, whereby on an application filed by the defendants, Municipal Council, Meham, was impleaded as party. The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from damaging the plaintiffs' house and also restraining the defendants from connecting the sewerage line of their houses in front of the plaintiffs' house . The defendants filed written statement and taken up a stand that in fact, the land in front of the house of the plaintiffs vests with the Municipal Council. Since the land is said to be vesting with the Municipal Council, the defendants have moved an application for impleading Municipal Council, as a party to the proceedings, which has been allowed CR No.3589 of 2009 (2) by the learned trial Court vide the order impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the suit is for permanent injunction and the plaintiffs are threatened by the action of the defendants alone, therefore, the Municipal Council is not a necessary party. The defendants can summon an official from the Municipal Council, in support of their case, but the presence of the Municipal Council is not necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra alias Gadasa Guru, 1995(1) Recent Revenue Reports (SC) 660 and Reema Rani v. Gurmukh Singh and another, 2004(4) RCR (Civil) 761. The aforesaid judgments are not relevant for the determination of the issue involved in the present case as the case of the defendants is that the street in front of the house of the plaintiffs vests with the Municipal Council. Whether the street vests in the Municipal Council or not, is a question of fact, which in the absence of Municipal Council, can adversely affect the rights of the Municipal Council. Therefore, such basic issue is required to be adjudicated upon in the presence of the Municipal Council. Therefore, the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner provide no assistance to the argument raised. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 03-07-2009 ds