C. R. No. 501 OF 2007. Present : Mr.J.S.Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.H.L.Bhatia, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.A.S.Parmar, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 7. ******* Challenge in this revision petition is to an order, dated 12.10.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissing an application, filed by the petitioner, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, for his being impleaded as a respondent. Respondent No.2, along with Smt. Shankari, since deceased, filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the petitioner and the Gram Panchayat from excavating a drain by altering the natural flow of water or constructing a new drain in the street situated in the Hadbast area of village Nadalon, Tehsil Garshshankar, District Hoshiarpur. The petitioner was arrayed as defendant No.1. The suit, qua the petitioner, was, however, withdrawn. The Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hoshiarpur, vide order, dated 5.5.2000, dismissed the application for grant of temporary injunction. An appeal, filed by respondent No.2 and the wife of respondent No.3, was also dismissed, vide order, dated 10.2.2001, by the District Judge, Hoshiarpur. Eventually, the suit was dismissed on 27.4.2005. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, respondents No.2 to 7 filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner, apprehending that respondents No.2 to 7 and the Gram Panchayat would collude to affect his rights, filed an application, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, praying C.R.No.501 of 2007 : 2 : that he be impleaded as respondent No.2. By the impugned order, the application was dismissed. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat categorically states, on the basis of averments in the written statement, filed by the Gram Panchayat, that the drain would be constructed, in accordance with the natural flow of water and with the approval of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. It is further stated that in case the drain affects the petitioner's rights, he would be at liberty to seek his remedy, in accordance with law. It is further asserted that the petitioner's brother has already filed an independent suit, praying for grant of an injunction. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. In view of the statement, made by counsel for the Gram Panchayat, with which, counsel for respondents No.2 to 7 has not expressed any disagreement, the petitioner's apprehension of collusion between the Gram Panchayat and the other respondents is without basis. The impugned order, therefore, does not call for interference. However, if at any subsequent stage, the petitioner's rights are affected in any manner, he would be at liberty to seek remedy, in accordance with law. With the observations made above, the present revision petition stands disposed of. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) January 10, 2008. JUDGE `kk'