In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3920 of 2008 Date of decision: April 17, 2009 Lt. Col. T.S. Bajwa .. Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. M.S. Rakkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate Standing Counsel for UOI. Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Alka Sarin, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition has arisen out of the order dated 30.4.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ambala Cantt, accepting the application of the respondents No.3 and 4 for impleading them as defendants in the suit. The plaintiff-petitioner set up a case before the trial court that he is the owner in possession of the Bunglow No.37 (Survey No.28) situated at The Mall Road, Ambala Cantt, and the respondents No.1 and 2 have no concern with the said property and he sought injunction restraining the respondents No.1 and 2 from damaging, demolishing and interfering the boundary wall, pillars and fencing of the said Bunglow. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents No. 3 and 4 who are also vendees of Bunglow No.38 (adjoining the Bunglow of the plaintiff) pleaded that there is a passage in between Bunglow No.37 and 38, and the plaintiff is encroaching upon the said passage. As such, in order to defend their rights over the passage, they being affected party applied for being impleaded as defendants. Civil Revision No. 3920 of 2008 -2- *** The trial court after hearing the parties at length, permitted the respondents No.3 and 4 to be impleaded as party to defend their cause regarding the passage. Heard. The question into controversy involved between the parties is with regard to a passage approaching to the house of the respondents No.3 and 4. As per the plaintiff, Bunglow No.38 owned by the respondents No.3 and 4 have an entrance from southern side only, but as per defendants, they had an access to their house from eastern as well as southern side and now the petitioner has erected the boundary wall blocking the legitimate access to their Bunglow. Survey of India plan of 1902-03, shows the existence of this path. It has been further urged that the defendants further want to protect their rights by way of contesting the suit against the unauthorised encroachment of the passage by the plaintiff thereby depriving them of their access to the Bunglow No.38 owned by them. Certainly, when there was encroachment over rights of passage of respondents No.3 and 4 then they being the necessary and affected parties instead of filing a separate suit thereby multiplying the litigation, could contest the suit after being impleaded as parties. Thus, it would be expedient in the interest of justice and in order to avoid multiplicity of the suits, the defendants No.3 and 4 could come to contest the suit filed by the plaintiff particularly when Union of India hving sold the properties lost their interest in the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Madras High Court in case Sri Venkateswara Hindu Colony vs. P. Thambiran and others, 1995 A.I.H.C. 5336, in order to contend that the respondents No.3 and 4 cannot be impleaded as defendants. Having examined the aforesaid judgment, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the wake of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. April 17, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge