Civil Revision No.6807 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6807 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.12.2010 Dura Ram and others ....Petitioners Versus The Municipal Committee and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Rajeev Takkar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Plaintiffs/petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 8.9.2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Loharu, whereby by application moved by respondents No.4 to 9 herein seeking impleadment in the suit, was allowed. Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration declaring the plaintiffs as well as Custodian Department joint owners of the property in dispute. In the suit, Municipal Committee, Loharu, District Bhiwani, has taken the defence that suit property belongs to the Municipal Committee and partly belongs to the Custodian Department. It is further pleaded in the defence by the Municipal Committee that in part of the property there is a graveyard and entire property is for the general public use. Respondents No.4 to 9 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC saying property in dispute to be shamshan ghat, which is reserved Civil Revision No.6807 of 2010 (O&M) -2- for the use of general public. It is further alleged in the application that since respondents No.4 to 9 are members of the public, hence to watch the interests of the public they are necessary party in the suit. Learned trial Court vide impugned order allowed the impleadment of respondents No.4 to 9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jai Singh and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another reported in (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 385 has held that the exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised list a “bull in a china shop”, to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case when Municipal Committee defendant No.1 is also alleging property in dispute as a property to be used by the general public, in the opinion of this Court suit before the trial Court must be considered a suit against general public under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. Present petition is dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the case considering the case against the general public under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC and to proceed further in accordance with law with the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. (Alok Singh) Judge December 13, 2010 R.S.