IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7439 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.12.2009 Punjab Wakf Board .....Petitioner versus Smt.Kamla Rani and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the Tribunal under the Punjab Wakf Act, Patiala, whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by the petitioner-Board for its impleadment as a party-defendant, has been dismissed. The controversy pertains to the possessory rights over Red Rose Junior Model School, Banur and a residential house alongwith boundary wall etc. The respondent-plaintiff is claiming herself to be in possession thereof. She has already proved her possession in Civil Suit No.97-T dated 29.9.2001 for permanent injunction which she had filed C.R. No.7439 of 2009 (O&M) 2 against the petitioner-Board and was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 1.11.2006. It is not denied that vide the afore-stated decree, the petitioner-Board has been restrained from dispossessing Smt.Kamla Rani- plaintiff-respondent except in due course of law. Thereafter, the petitioner- Board is stated to have filed a suit for possession against Smt.Kamla Rani. Meanwhile, Smt.Kamla Rani filed another suit for permanent injunction against the proforma respondent Nos.2 to 6 in respect of the same property. It is in this suit that the petitioner-Board applied for its impleadment as defendant which has been declined by the Tribunal. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and taking notice of Section 92 and 83 of the Punjab Wakf Act, 1995, I am of the considered view that the petitioner-Board is neither necessary nor a proper party to the said suit. Suffice it to observe that since the petitioner-Board is not a party to the suit, the injunction decree, if any, can have no binding effect on it. If the petitioner-Board has any claim against the proforma respondent Nos.2 to 6 also, nothing precludes it to implead them in the suit for possession already filed against Smt.Kamla Rani-plaintiff-respondent or institute another suit against them. No interference with the impugned order is called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 15-12-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE