Civil Rev. 4569 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH Civil Rev. 4569 of 2008 Date of decision: 31.7.2009 Satya Narain Petitioner vs Ganpat Lal & Others Respondent Present Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate Mr. Rahul Vatts, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. No ground is made out for interfering in the impugned order dated 26.2.2008 dismissing the application of the petitioner to be impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the trial court. The petitioner claims an interest in the property, which is subject matter of lis between Ganpat Lal and Muncipal Council, Narnaul. The petitioner claims that the property in dispute is situated in front of his house but the Muncipal Council has wrongly, in collusion with the plaintiff- respondent No.1 admitted the same to be in possession of respondent No.1- plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment in V.J.Thomas vs Pathrose Abraham & Ors 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 693, to contend that the users of path way should be impleaded as parties. I have gone through the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner. In the said judgment, the question, which arose for adjudication was whether a third party can be impleaded in a suit filed under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. The Civil Rev. 4569 of 2008 2 nature of the suit is always a determining factor while deciding an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. In the present case, the petitioner wants to be impleaded as a party having an interest in the property, which is subject matter of lis between Ganpat Lal and the Muncipal Council, whereas he is neither claiming exclusive possession nor ownership of the property. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Dismissed. However, the petitioner will be entitled to safe- guard his interest by filing a separate suit on the basis of right, title or interest in the property in dispute. July 31 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE