C. R. No. 515 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 515 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 27, 2010 Kishori Lal .... Petitioner Vs. Surender Kumar @ Jain and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Kishori Lal has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 16.01.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi thereby dismissing application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) for impleading the petitioner as party to the suit, instituted by respondent no.1 against proforma respondents no.2 to 4. Respondent no.1 has filed suit seeking mandatory injunction directing respondents no.2 and 3 to remove encroachments made by respondent no.2 (defendant no.1) on the land of plaintiff-respondent no.1 alleging that properties of plaintiff and defendant no.1 adjoin each other. Other reliefs have also been claimed. Petitioner filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for C. R. No. 515 of 2010 2 becoming party to the suit alleging that the property of the petitioner is also located opposite the property of the plaintiff, but in between there is three feet wide municipal lane for discharge of water etc. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that if suit of the plaintiff is decreed against respondents no.2 and 3, it would result in closure of the municipal lane lying between property of plaintiff and property of defendant no.1 thereby prejudicing the rights of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Shayama Jain vs. Smt. Savitri Devi and others reported as 2003 (1) Latest Judicial Reports 621. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the petitioner cannot be said to be proper or necessary party to the suit filed by respondent no.1 against respondents no.2 to 4 because admittedly, respondent no.1 has already filed a separate suit against the petitioner herein regarding property of petitioner lying opposite the property of plaintiff-respondent no.1 and in that suit, the issue whether there is any intervening municipal lane or not, would be adjudicated upon. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent no.1 has encroached upon part of the municipal lane lying between the property of plaintiff and property of defendant no.1/respondent no.2. However, if that be so, the petitioner has to approach the Court as a plaintiff to seek appropriate relief for removal of alleged encroachment made by respondent no.1 over alleged municipal lane. No purpose would be served by impleading the petitioner as party to the pending suit. On the other hand, the question whether there is any municipal lane or not between the property of plaintiff and property of petitioner herein, would be adjudicated upon in the separate suit already filed by respondent no.1 against petitioner herein. C. R. No. 515 of 2010 3 For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court warranting any interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine being without any merit. January 27, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE