Civil Revision No. 6092 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6092 of 2011 Date of decision.03.10.2011 Bimla Devi .... Petitioner Versus Municipal Council Hoshiarpur and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is a revision petition brought by the plaintiff Bimla Devi under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.09.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur whereby the application of defendants no.2 to 8 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been allowed and they have been ordered to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. The suit was originally filed by Bimla Devi against Municipal Council Hoshiarpur for permanent injunction restraining the defendants or its agents from forcibly and illegally interfering in her peaceful and lawful possession over the property marked by letters Civil Revision No. 6092 of 2011 --2-- 'ABCD' in the site plan, which is described as her private passage. The applicants-respondents no. 2 to 8 claimed themselves to have interest in the suit property. They have claimed the suit property to be public passage leading to a colony where they are residing. According to them, the property falls in ward no.11 and there are more than 50 residential houses carved out there, which have the property in dispute as the only means of access. It is claimed that its original width was 20 feet but 9 feet width of this passage has been encroached upon by the plaintiffs and others and they are threatening to encroach upon the remaining width of the passage also. The application was opposed by the plaintiff claiming it to be not maintainable and having been filed just to delay the proceedings of the present suit. The applicants are denied to have any concern with the suit property. The plaintiff has claimed herself to be dominus litus of the suit property and that she could not be compelled to seek relief against the applicants. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court allowed the application, vide the impugned order, aggrieved by which , the plaintiff has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Vaibhav Narang, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the disputed property is a private passage of the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner has raised a wall in the property in Civil Revision No. 6092 of 2011 --3-- question and it cannot be said that it is being used by the applicants. According to him, the applicants have made a false claim to this property. He has submitted that they have got a number of other passages for approaching their property He has also submitted that the colony, alleged to be there, having access through the property in dispute is an unauthorized colony and the applicants have no concern with the suit property. While on the one hand, the plaintiff asserts that the suit property is her private passage on the other hand, the applicants assert that it is a public passage and they approach their property through this passage. One thing is common in the two stands and the same is that the property in dispute is a passage. The question whether it is a public passage or a private passage would be decided after the evidence is led by the parties before the trial court. Municipal Council, Hoshiarpur, who has been sued by Bimla Devi also represents the interest of the inhabitants of the place qua the passages Whether the applicants have other alternative passage for approaching their property or not is a disputed question of fact, which has to be decided after taking the evidence. Since the houses of the applicants, may be in an unauthorized colony. have this passage on its side through which they can approach their property, they can be said to be proper parties to the suit if not necessary parties. If the applicants are found to be necessary or proper parties to a suit, the plaintiff cannot oppose their prayer for being impleaded as defendants Civil Revision No. 6092 of 2011 --4-- in the suit, simply on the principle that the plaintiff is dominus litus of the suit. Consequently I find no patent illegality in the impugned order. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 03.10.2011 dinesh