Civil Revision No. 301 of 2010 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 301 of 2010 Date of decision : 19.1.2010 Chander Bhan & others ....Petitioners Versus Nihal Singh and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioners S. D. ANAND, J. Chander Bhan and two others had filed a civil suit against the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, and others for the grant of a decree for a declaration that they are owners in possession of the property in suit. Also applied for was the corection of the revenue record which indicated the contrary. They had also applied for the grant of a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants therein from demolishing the house in question or any part thereof and dispossessing the plaintiffs from the property in suit. In the corresponding para of the written statement, the Municipal Corporation had raised a plea that property in suit was previously of shamlat deh and it had come to vest in the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, by virtue of the enforcement of the Haryana Act No.9 of 1992 (as amended in the Punjab village Common Lands Regulation Civil Revision No. 301 of 2010 -2- *** Act, 1961) and Act No.18 of 1999 (as amended in the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act,1994). In the course of the trial, Nihal Singh and 5-6 others filed a plea under order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 C.P.C. of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as defendants.The averment, in the course thereof, was that they are also proprietors in the village and their impleadment would enable the Trial Court to adjudicate upon the controversy completely and effectively. That plea came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 4.11.2009. The plaintiffs-petitioners are in revision against it. It is vehemenly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order deserves invalidation for the simple reason that the plaintiffs cannot be compelled to contest a cause against the persons whom they had not impleaded as party- respondents. It is also the plea on behalf of the petitioners that the impleadment of the persons aforementioned shall only complicate the adjudication and would not be in the interests of justice. It being apparent from the material obtaining on the file that this land was initially Shamlat deh land which has come to vest in the Municipal Corporation by virtue of the enforcement of the Haryana Act No.9 of 1992 (as amended in the Punjab village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961) and Act No.18 of 1999 (as amended in the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act,1994), the Civil Revision No. 301 of 2010 -3- *** applicants who claim to be proprietors of the village would be a necessary party to the cause and their presence which shall enable the learned Trial Court to adjudicate upon the controversy completely and effectively. There is nothing in the impugned order which would call for interference. The petition shall stand dismissed in limine. However,with a view to allay the apprehension in the mind of the plaintiffs that the trial would thereby get inordinately delayed, it is ordered that the relevant suit instituted in the year 2006 shall be concluded by the learned Trial Court within six months from the next date of hearing. The acknowledgment (of a copy of this order) issued by the concerned Judicial Officer shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court. Learned District Judge shall himself maintain a tab to ensure that the case is disposed of by afore-mentioned date. January 19, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE