C.R. No. 3246 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3246 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.09.2010 Mukhtiar .... Petitioner Versus Ram Kumar and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Y.P. Singla, Advocate for the respondents 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition is filed challenging order dated 29.4.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Narnaul thereby transposing the proforma defendants as plaintiffs. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff has filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the contesting defendants from interfering in the suit land. The main ground taken in the plaint is that plaintiff in the suit is co-owner alongwith proforma defendants and they have purchased the land in dispute from defendants No. 1 to 5 and their predecessor-in-interest Smt. Sarya widow of Bullu. Contesting defendants preferred the counter claim in the suit. Suit of the plaintiff was directed to be dismissed in default vide order dated 17.8.2007, however, counter C.R. No. 3246 of 2010 2 claim was directed to proceed. Thereafter, proforma defendants having interest with the plaintiff moved an application before the Court for transposing them as the plaintiff in the suit. Learned trial Court, having observed that since the proforma defendants are claiming themselves as co-owner with the plaintiff and relief sought in the counter claim is against the plaintiff as well as proforma defendants, hence, to contest counter claim effectively proforma defendants should be transposed as plaintiff, directed transposition of proforma defendants as plaintiffs. 3. I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order impugned. 4. Petition is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 20.09.2010 JUDGE reena