SBCWP No.3641/2008 Ramesh Kumar & Anr Vs. M/s. Oricure Health Pvt Ltd., & Ors. 1 SBCWP No.3641/2008 Ramesh Kumar & Anr Vs. M/s. Oricure Health Pvt Ltd., & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 7.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Sunil Beniwal, for the petitioners. Mr. SK Punia, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 9th May, 2008 by which their application filed for being impleaded as party in the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was rejected by the trial court. According to the plaintiffs certain land of the way has been encroached by some persons. The plaintiffs are seeking removal of those encroachments through Municipal Board by decree so that the land of way may be made available obviously by removing the encroachment made by others. SBCWP No.3641/2008 Ramesh Kumar & Anr Vs. M/s. Oricure Health Pvt Ltd., & Ors. 2 The petitioners-applicants' contention is that their house is situated on the land in dispute and if any order/decree will be passed in the suit in favour of the plaintiff then that will be against the applicants and not against the Municipal Board. They are relying upon the two agreements dated 22nd May, 1992 and 14th August, 1991. The trial court observed that by virtue of those agreements, no right is created in favour of the applicants and in case even if applicants land is situated on the land in dispute even then they can come as witnesses in the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that they are not seeking any relief against the applicants and they are seeking relief of removal of structure from the public way for which the Municipal Board is bound to act and cannot remain dormant. Since the contention of the applicants is that their house is situated on the land in dispute then they cannot be said to be a mere witness in the suit and ultimate relief may have severe effect on their right, which they may possess. In view of the above reason, the relief will be against the SBCWP No.3641/2008 Ramesh Kumar & Anr Vs. M/s. Oricure Health Pvt Ltd., & Ors. 3 persons who are in possession, therefore, the trial court should have taken a reasonable approach by impleading the applicants as party in the suit to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order dated 9th May, 2008 is set aside. The application of the applicants filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is allowed and the applicants are impleaded as party- defendants in the suit. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-