Civil Revision No. 4790 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4790 of 2008 Date of decision: 2.3.2009 Birpal ...Petitioner Versus Brij Bhan and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay Pal Singh, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 5. Mr.Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no.6. Mr.Suresh Monga, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana S.D.ANAND, J. Respondents No. 1 and 2 (the estate of latter being presently represented by his legal representatives) filed a civil suit for a declaration, alongwith consequential relief of injunction, against the defendants- respondents. The plea raised therein was that the plaintiffs are lawful lessees in respect of the Gair Mumkin Pahar under reference and official respondents had no locus standi to cancel the mutation relateable to the transaction aforementioned. The challenge thereby was to the validity of the cancellation of order dated 17.6.1996. Also sought, as a consequential relief thereof, was the restraint of official respondents from dispossessing the plaintiff therein from the Gairmumkin Pahar or interfering in possession thereof. The suit came to be decreed. In appeal, the present petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for being impleaded as a Civil Revision No. 4790 of 2008 -2- **** party. That plea was declined by the learned Ist Appellate Court by making the following observations:- “In the present case, suit of the plaintiff has already been decreed and no relief has been sought against the applicants.” Even at the time of arguments before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to assert that the observation aforementioned proceeded on a factual incorrect premise. No relief had been sought against the petitioner at the trial. In that view of things, he just could not have validly asked for his impleadment as a party in appeal. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded in merit and is ordered to be discharged. March 02, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge