Civil Revision No.1950 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1950 of 2009 Decided on 06.07.2009 Pardeep Kumar Bhasin ....Petitioner Versus Rupinder Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present:- Mr.Anil Kheterpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 08.04.2009, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, whereby the application of Pardeep Kumar Bhasin-petitioner for impleading him as party-defendant has been dismissed. The petitioner claims himself to be purchaser of the property. However, since the sale deed was got registered in the name of his wife Smt.Seema Bhasin-respondent, therefore, she is benamidar. He has further submitted that he already filed a suit for permanent injunction against Seema Bhasin. It may be noticed that the suit property is in the name of Seema Bhasin and the relation of petitioner with his wife Seema Bhasin are not cordial, therefore, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining Seema Bhasin from interfering in his possession. No doubt, the Civil Revision No.1950 of 2009 2 civil Court has already declined injunction to Pardeep Kumar-petitioner in that case. It is also pertinent to notice that respondent did not claim relief against the petitioner in that suit. The major grievance of the petitioner is that after dismissing his application for impleading him as party-defendant, the Court passed an order dated 23.03.2009 directing the S.H.O., Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal to provide police help to Rupinder Singh- plaintiff for implementing the order of injunction whenever he required. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is not a party to the suit and his application Under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., moved by him, for impleading him as party- defendant has already been declined. Since the petitioner is not a party to the suit for injunction filed by Rupinder Singh, therefore, any order passed there in the suit would be binding between the parties inter-se and not upon the petitioner. As such, the decree, if any, passed in the suit would not be binding upon the petitioner. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the decree by way of filing a separate suit. It would be worthwhile to mention here that Rupinder Singh has sought implementation of injunction order by way of police help which has been passed against Seema Bhasin restraining her from interfering in his possession. The relevant extract of the order dated 20.02.2009 is reproduced as under:- "Power of attorney filed on behalf of the defendant. On request of learned counsel for the defendant to come up on 06.03.2009 for filing of written statement and reply to stay application. Till then, defendant is restrained from dispossession the plaintiff from the land in Civil Revision No.1950 of 2009 3 question." This order has not so far become final as it could be varied altered or modified at any stage of the proceedings. The code of Civil Procedure nowhere provides for police help in case of implementation of such order. As such, the trial Court fell in error to pass order dated 23.03.2009 for implementing the order with police help. Since the petitioner is not a party to the suit, therefore, this order of police help will also not to be of any effect qua any rights. Disposed of accordingly. (A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE 06.07.2009 mamta-II Civil Revision No.1950 of 2009 4 Civil Revision No.2087 of 2009 (O&M) Present: Mr.K.S.Dadwal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the petitioners. **** C.M.NO.14205-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Civil Revision No.2087 of 2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that 62 pages judgment passed by the trial Court either contains the averments are the arguments but the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence and did not make specific observations while deciding issues No.1 and 2 in favour of respondent. It has been further contended that the respondent has been paid all the pensionary benefits except a sum of Rs.8,000/- but the Court did not look into the documents and without examining as to what actually remains due against the petitioners it decreed the suit as prayed for. Notice of motion for 06.08.2009. In the meantime, execution of decree is stayed. (A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE 09.07.2009 mamta-II Civil Revision No.1950 of 2009 5 Civil Revision No.3448 of 2007 Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Hemant Saini, Advocate. **** To be heard alongwith Civil Revision No.3091 of 2007 on 23.07.2009. (A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE 09.07.2009 mamta-II Civil Revision No.1950 of 2009 6