SAO No. 28 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- SAO No. 28 of 2006 Date of decision: 03.07.2008 Durga Parshad and others .......Appellants Versus Jai Narain Sharma and others .......Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NIRMAL YADAV Present: Mr. Pradeep Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Ms Meenaxi, Advocate for Mr. R S Mamli, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3 -.- NIRMAL YADAV, J. (Oral) This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.08.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which, Ram Kumar and others, who are stated to be Biswedars of the land in dispute, have been ordered to be impleaded as party at the appellate stage. Plaintiff-Jai Narain, filed a suit for declaration and injunction, claiming to be the owner in possession of the suit property, whereas the appellants also claimed themselves to be the owners of the suit property on the basis of decree dated 16.11.1981 passed by learned Civil Judge, Kurukshetra. Since aggrieved, appellants-Durga Parshad and others filed the SAO No. 28 of 2006 2 appeal. During pendency of the appeal, applicants-Ram Kumar and others filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading themselves as party by stating that they are biswedars of the land in question, which is recorded as Shalmlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zare khewat. The application was opposed by the appellants on the ground that Ram Kumar and others have also filed a separate suit challenging the above said decree claiming themselves to be owners of the entire land. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellants have been impleaded in the said suit. Taking into consideration that Ram Kumar and others have claimed to be owners as proprietors, therefore, they are interested party and should have been impleaded at the first instance when the suit was filed by plaintiff Jai Narain. Since they are not impleaded as party, it might cause prejudice to their interest. Accordingly, no ground for interference with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. [NIRMAL YADAV] JUDGE July 03, 2008 mohan