Civil Revision No. 2746 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2746 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.07.2009. Jagdish Parshad ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Sarswati and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 11580-CII of 2009 Allowed. The applicant-petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copies of Annexure P-1 to P-3 and permitted to place on record the true copies thereof. CR No. 2746 & CM No. 11581-CII of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, allowing an application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by respondents No. 3 to 9. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit against respondent- Saraswati, who was recorded in the revenue record to be in possession of the property. The claim of the plaintiff/petitioner was, that the entries in the revenue record are not correct and are liable to be corrected. Civil Revision No. 2746 of 2009 (O&M) -2- On coming to know, respondents No. 3 to 9 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as defendants, primarily on the plea, that the plaintiff has no right or interest in the property, as it is under the ownership of applicant-respondents No. 3 to 9. In view of the averments made in the petition, and also the dispute in the suit, the learned trial Court has been pleased to allow the application by holding, that the applicant-respondents No. 3 to 9 are necessary party to the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has impugned the order on the ground, that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, as respondents No. 3 to 9 are neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. The contention raised is, that claim, if any, of respondents No. 3 to 9 is qua the adjoining land and not the land in dispute. This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Respondents No. 3 to 9 are claiming their right in the property in dispute, claiming to be under their ownership. The learned Court below, therefore, was right in holding, that applicant-respondents No. 3 to 9 were necessary party, to the suit. The order passed does not suffer from any illegality or lack of jurisdiction, which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 30, 2009 rs