Civil Revision No. 2502 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2502 of 2011 Date of Decision: 18.4.2011 *** Bahadur Ali .. Petitioner Vs. Shaukat Ali & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Y.P. Khullar, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for becoming a party in the pending appeal as well as his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for incorporating some amendment in the earlier application, have been dismissed by the Court below by dint of order dated 22.3.2011, which has been impugned in the present revision petition. Heard. The suit was decreed in respect of property of Parsin Kaur, who, as per the petitioner, had given the ownership rights in his favour and claimed to be in possession of two rooms and a verandah thereof. It is a matter of record that the petitioner failed to show that either he was legal representative of said Parsin Kaur or any will in his favour was executed or that the suit property was sold to him. The bald assertion that he is owner in possession of some portion of the suit property, which is the subject matter of the appeal, without there being any cogent and convincing proof, does not find favour with the Court below and is not acceptable to this Court as well. The petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be Civil Revision No. 2502 of 2011 2 said to be a necessary or proper party in whose absence the appeal could not be effectively and properly adjudicated upon. The present petition being devoid of any merit is thus, dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 18 , 2011 Jiten