C. R. No. 7110 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 7110 of 2009 Date of Decision : April 30, 2010 Sohan Lal and another .... Petitioners Vs. Kalawati and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for respondents no.2 to 9. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiffs Sohan Lal and Mahesh Chand have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning order dated 17.11.2009, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, thereby allowing application moved by respondents no.2 to 9 herein for being impleaded as party to the suit, which has been instituted by the petitioners against respondent no.1 Kalawati alone. The petitioners have effected compromise with respondent no.1 – original defendant, regarding 17 kanals 04 marlas land. It is not disputed that Galley Ram – father of petitioners and respondent no.9 was permanent lessee of 31 kanals 14 marlas land being half share of 63 kanals 08 marlas land, whereas Galley's brother Gabdu (predecessor of respondents no.2 to 8) C. R. No. 7110 of 2009 2 was permanent lessee of the other half share. Accordingly, on death of Galley, his half share was inherited by his widow, three sons (petitioners and respondent no.9) and three daughters, but Galley's three daughters and widow relinquished their share in favour of petitioners and respondent no.9. Accordingly, petitioners and respondent no.9 have 31 kanals 14 marlas land and respondents no.2 to 8 have the remaining 31 kanals 14 marlas land. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the share of petitioners being 2/3rd of 31 kanals 14 marlas land would be more than 17 kanals 04 marlas land, which is being claimed by the petitioners in the suit and therefore, share of respondents no.2 to 9 would not be effected by compromise effected by the petitioners with respondent no.1 and consequently, respondents no.2 to 9 are neither proper nor necessary party to the suit. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention and find considerable merit therein. The land claimed by the petitioners in the suit is less than their share in the joint land. Consequently, any compromise between the petitioners and respondent no.1 would not effect the share of respondents no.2 to 9. In any event, this fact is made expressly clear that compromise between the petitioners and respondent no.1 shall not effect the share of respondents no.2 to 9. In view of the aforesaid, respondents no.2 to 9 cannot be said to be proper or necessary party to the suit. The instant revision petition is, therefore, allowed and impugned order dated 17.11.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial court is set aside and application moved by respondents no.2 to 9 for being impleaded as party to the suit stands dismissed. April 30, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE