IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 184 of 2007 Date of decision 5.5.2011 Roop Chand …Petitioner Versus Om Parkash & others …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta,Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr.T.S Chauhan Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. J.R Poswal Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Trilok Jamwal Advocate for respondent No.3. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 2nd August 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur whereby the application of respondent No.3 here was allowed and he was permitted to be impleaded as respondent in the appeal. 2 It is not necessary to give the detailed history of the case but the facts are that there was a long standing dispute between the petitioner Rup Chand and the respondent No.1 and 2 namely Om Parkash and Manohar Lal who are sons of his brother. This is the third round of litigation . 3. .Previously Sh. Vijay Kumar respondent No.3 had appeared as a witness for Om Parkash and Manohar Lal in the Civil suit No.150-1 of 1988. The first suit ended in a compromise. The second suit was filed by Om Parkash and Manohar Singh 1 Whether reporter of local papers are allowed to see the judgment ? yes 2 claiming that the compromise was obtained by fraud and is not binding upon them. It was further alleged that the mutation which was attested on the basis of the so called compromise was attested behind the back of the plaintiffs and therefore, they were not bound by the same. 4. As far as the first prayer was concerned, the same was rejected by the learned Trial Court and it held that the compromise was binding upon them. However, the suit was partly decreed to the effect that fresh mutation would be attested in their presence. . 5. Om Parkash and Manohar Lal filed an appeal against this order. It appears that in this appeal by the consent of the parties, a Local Commissioner was appointed to demarcate the land and when the Local Commissioner carried out demarcation, he found that out of the disputed land of 13 biswas, 3 biswas was in the possession of Vijay Kumar. 6. Thereafter, Vijay Kumar filed an application to be impleaded as a party on the ground that he is owner of the land which is in his possession and his rights may not be affected behind his back. 7. Sh. Trilok Jamwal who appeared for Vijay Kumar, respondent No.3 states that according to instructions received by him, the case of his client is that this 3 biswas of land does not form part of khasra No.232/199/1. i.e the suit land and is in fact part of the land owned by Vijay Kumar. His limited challenge is to the report of the Local Commissioner and he has nothing to say on the merits of the case. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the present petition is rejected but it is clarified that the right of Sh. Vijay Kumar is only to challenge the report of the Local Commissioner and he shall 3 have no right to claim any ownership on the original suit land, since while appearing as a witness in the first suit he had not claimed any such right. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Lower Appellate Court on 20.6.2011. Registry is directed to ensure that the record of learned Appellate Court is sent back before the next date. 10. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge May 5, 2011 (veena)