CR No. 3617 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No.12420-CII of 2008 and CR No. 3617 of 2008 Date of Decision: 7.9.2009 Mohan ....Petitioner. Versus Smt. Savitri and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Kaushal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. R.S. Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.2. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. No.12420-CII of 2008 Allowed as prayed for. C.R. No. 3617 of 2008 In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant-petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.4.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial court whereby an application filed by him under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as defendant in the suit, was dismissed. The observations made by the trial court in para 3 of its order are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the instant revision CR No. 3617 of 2008 -2- petition and the same read thus:- “3. Present suit filed by the plaintiff on the allegations that Ramchand father of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 was co-owner in joint possession to the extent of 1/3rd share in the land detailed in para no.1 of the plaint but defendant no.1 claiming that she is only daughter of Ramchand procured a decree dated 15.12.1990 and got mutation entered in which defendant no.1 Smt. Mukhtiari is recorded as entire share holder of Ramchand in the land in dispute. In the present case, plaintiff has challenged the decree dt. 15.12.90 and various sale deeds executed by Smt. Mukhtiari in favour of the remaining defendants. Therefore, dispute in the present case is whether Smt. Savitri is also daughter of Ramchand and whether judgment and decree dt. 15.12.90 is null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. By way of present application, applicant wants him to be impleaded as party in the present case on the ground that Smt. Mukhtiari had entered into an agreement to sell with him vide which she agreed to sell the land in dispute in favour of the applicant and now Smt. Mukhtiari is threatening to alienate the land in dispute in favour of some other person. However, as stated above, dispute in the present case is whether Smt. Savitri, plaintiff is daughter of Ramchand or not and CR No. 3617 of 2008 -3- whether the judgment and decree dt. 15.12.90 is illegal, null and void and for deciding these questions, applicant is not a necessary party. If the applicant has any issue against Smt. Mukhtiari and had any right to restrain her from alienating the land in dispute, it is a separate cause of action and cannot be decided in the present case and applicant can seek adjudication in the separate suit.” In view of the above and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that there is no illegality or perversity in the order dated 16.4.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial court which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. September 7, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE