Civil Revision No. 5692 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5692 of 2011 Date of decision. 19.09.2011 Ved Parkash Arya .... Petitioner Versus Thakur Dass ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Maharaj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Ved Parkash Arya, plaintiff has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.08.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, whereby his application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading Mohit Kumar, son of the defendant, as a party to the suit has been dismissed. The petitioner filed a suit for mandatory injunction with consequential relief of permanent injunction claiming that he purchased house bearing no. B.J. 1713 situated in Vakilpura Mohalla, Sadar Bazar, Karnal vide sale deed dated 15.5.2001. The respondent-defendant is also claimed to have purchased house vide registered sale deed dated Civil Revision No. 5692 of 2011 --2-- 02.11.2004. In the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant- respondent, it is specifically mentioned that there is a common street having 5' – 10” width. The defendant has closed the street in question and further encroached upon the land of the plaintiff to the extent of 9” in width on both sides by putting up a gate. The parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding installation of gate in the street. The other relief was, however, declined. The plaintiff filed an appeal before learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, where his appeal was dismissed. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading Mohit Kumar as the respondent because he was having a house in his name in the street in question, adjoining the house of the defendant. The said application has been dismissed vide the impugned order. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff has brought this revision petition. I have heard Mr. Maharaj Kumar, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner has submitted that learned trial court has fallen in error in accepting the submission of the defendant-respondent that Mohit Kumar is a student of Engineering and he never interfered in the affairs of his father qua the suit property. He has drawn my attention to a copy of the site plan (Annexure P-2), Civil Revision No. 5692 of 2011 --3-- where on a side of the house of Thakur Dass, defendant-respondent, there is a house of Mohit Kumar. He has submitted that he is independently interfering in the right of the plaintiff of use of the street and, therefore, his prayer for impleading Mohit Kumar as a party to the suit could not be dismissed. The house of Ved Parkash Arya in the site plan (Annexure P-2) has chowk on one side and street on the other side. The street, shown as 5'-10” wide, ends with the house of Parkash Wanti. It is therefore a blind alley in which the defendant, his son, if he has a separate house, and Parkash Wanti alone seem to have right of passage. The gate has already been installed at the boundary of this street which separates this street from the chowk. The plaintiff-petitioner has failed to put on record any copy of the sale deed in favour of Thakur Dass wherefrom it could have been gathered that house of Mohit Kumar son of the defendant is separate and that he is providing any cause of action to the plaintiff. When the application for ad-interim injunction of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from raising construction in the street has been dismissed, there was no reason for the son to have tried to raise any construction therein. His father himself had the right to raise construction therein and he had not been restrained therefrom. If the house that abuts the narrow street belongs to Thakur Dass, defendant and Mohit Kumar is only a son of Thakur Dass, then the son would be bound by the orders passed in the suit and there is no need to implead him Civil Revision No. 5692 of 2011 --4-- personally as party. In these circumstances, it does not appear on the record that Mohit Kumar is a necessary party to the suit. The attempt to implead him as party to the suit appears to be an attempt to harass him. The application for impleading Mohit Kumar has, therefore, been rightly dismissed. The revision petition is, therefore, found to be without any merit and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.09.2011 dinesh