IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.119 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.11.2009 Man Singh .....Petitioner versus Budhram and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rajneesh Chandwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner impugns the order dated 15.11.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narnaul, whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by respondent No.1 herein, namely Budhram son of Devi Sahai, for his impleadment as a co-plaintiff, has been allowed. Respondent Nos.2 to 5, who are sons/daughters of Rohtash son of Badami, have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant. In that suit, they have also impleaded Daya Chand s/o Badami, Smt.Bhurli, Smt.Banarsi both ds/o Badami and Smt.Bedo wd/o Rohtash son of Badami, namely, their own mother, real uncle (Chacha) and two sisters of their deceased father, as performa defendants. C.R. No.119 of 2008 (O&M) 2 It appears that during the pendency of the suit, the above named performa defendants have sold their share in the suit property to the applicant Budhram son of Devi Sahai. After having acquired the interest in the suit land, the said vendee Budhram son of Devi Sahai moved an application for his impleadment as co-plaintiff in the suit and his application has been allowed by the trial Court vide the impugned order, giving rise to this revision petition. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. There is indeed no dispute that impleadment of respondent No.1 Budhram son of Devi Sahai as co-plaintiff has not been opposed by the original plaintiffs, namely, respondent Nos.2 to 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 points out that in fact the said respondent has also purchased the shares of original plaintiffs, namely respondent Nos.2 to 5. In this manner, the original plaintiffs are now left with no interest in the suit property. Respondent No.1 having stepped into the shoes of the plaintiffs and the performa-defendants, acceptance of his application and consequential impleadment as a co-plaintiff, warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 19-11-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE