IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5843 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 10, 2010 Balkar Singh …Petitioner Versus Sharanjit Kaur and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 29.07.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, thereby rejecting the application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. seeking impleadment. The brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs have filed suit for following reliefs:- “a) Suit for declaration to the effect that the alleged sale deed dated 8.7.2003 executed by Sharanjit Kaur wife of deceased Jaswant Singh son of Chanan C.R. No. 5843 of 2010 Singh in favour of defendant no.2 Balkar Singh son of Baldev Singh is null and void ineffective, capricious, without jurisdiction and it does not bind / affect the right of the plaintiffs. b) Suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant no.2 Balkar Singh from alienating and or transferring and or parting with possession of the suit land in any manner whatsoever. c) Suit for partition separating the shares of the plaintiffs from the joint khata of the land in suit, as the plaintiffs do not want to keep their shares joint with the remaining co-sharers.” The relief (c) is for partition separating the shares of the plaintiffs from the joint property. In paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. seeking impleadment, petitioner – applicant has stated that he has purchased the share of Sharanjit Kaur widow of Jaswant Singh in the joint property. A Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Ram Chander vs. Bhim Singh and others, reported in (2008) 151 PLR 747, has held that purchaser from the co-sharer become the co-sharer and owner of each parcel of the land. In the opinion of this Court, since the petitioner is claiming himself to be a co-sharer, he is, of course, a necessary party in a suit for partition. 2 C.R. No. 5843 of 2010 Learned Trial Court by non-speaking order without discussing any fact of the application and suit, dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. by saying that the plaintiff is himself master of his case and he cannot be directed to contest the case against whom he does not want to proceed. Perhaps, learned Trial Court has forgotten that in suit for partition every co-sharer is proper and necessary party. In view of the above, without issuing notice to the respondents, present petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court is directed to decide the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. afresh in the light of the above observation. September 10, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3