IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1539 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 17.12.2009 Meera Devi and another .....Petitioners versus Haryana Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt, and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Vineet Yadav, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.Jaswant Jain, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 to 6. -.- 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 2.1.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari-cum-Tribunal under the Haryana Wakf Act, whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, moved by respondent Nos.4 to 6 for their impleadment as party-defendants, has been allowed. The petitioners have filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the Haryana Wakf Board in respect of the suit land measuring 15 kanal comprising in Khasra Nos.59 and 60, situated in Village Dhonki, Tehsil and District Rewari. The petitioners have claimed that they are lessees over the land owned by C.R. No.1539 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the Wakf Board. In that suit, respondent Nos.4 to 6 have moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for their impleadment also claiming themselves to be lessees under the Wakf Board over the suit land. Their application has been allowed by the Tribunal vide the impugned order, giving rise to this revision petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the impugned order, I am of the considered view that since both the parties claim themselves to be lessees on the same piece of land, respondent Nos.4 to 6 are also the proper, if not necessary, parties to the proceedings. Consequently, no interference with the impugned order to the extent of impleadment of respondent Nos.4 to 6 as party-defendants, is called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. However, on a plain reading of the impugned order dated 2.1.2009, it appears that the Tribunal has made avoidable observations regarding possession of respondent Nos.4 to 6 over the suit land. It being a question of fact, would be decided by the Tribunal after the parties lead their respective evidence. The observations touching the merits of the case and made in the impugned order, are hereby set-aside. The Tribunal shall decide the suit expeditiously, in accordance with law and uninfluenced of the observations made by it in the impugned order. Disposed of. Dasti. 17-12-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE