C.R.No.6707 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.6707 of 2008 Date of decision: 19.5.2010 Sucha Singh .....Peittioner vs. Sukhchain Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Maharaj Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Raveesh Bansal, Advocate, for respondents No.2&3. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This order will dispose of Civil Revision Petitions bearing No.6707,6708, 6709 of 2008 and 336 of 2009, as in all these cases common question of law, on the same facts is involved. For brevity, the facts are being taken from C.R.No.6707 of 2008. This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 30.4.2008 whereby respondent No.3 was impleaded as a defendant in the suit. The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted before this Court that the petitioner is the owner of the suit property on the basis of a sale deed dated 12.3.2001 and Hardip Kaur mother of the contesting applicant-respondent has already been impleaded in the suit and, therefore, the trial Court erred at law while impleading the applicant- respondent against whom no relief was claimed by the petitioner and the petitioner being the dominus litus of this case cannot be forced to fight the C.R.No.6707 of 2008 2 litigation against his wishes. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has vehemently argued that he is claiming the title of the property on the basis of the alleged decree dated 4.11.1993 and, therefore, he is necessary and proper party in the suit and the impugned order has been passed rightly. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has been informed that the proceedings in the suit are continuing and the parties have already submitted their pleadings. The counsel for the petitioner prayed before this Court that in fact the intention of the applicant is only to delay the proceedings in the suit, and the petitioner shall be satisfied if a time bound direction is given to the trial Court for disposing of the suit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of the pending suit within one year from today. All the Civil Revisions are disposed of in the aforesaid manner. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge May 19, 2010 rk