IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.1252/2009 Date of Decision:18.5.2009. Raj Kumar ..........Petitioner. Versus Sunder Lal and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh,Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondents 1 to 5. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Petitioner-plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 28.1.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division)Jagadhari, whereby his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading 15 more persons as defendants stated to be co-sharers in the suit property, was dismissed. It is case of the petitioner that he filed a suit for partition of the property measuring 52' x 32' with specified dimensions on the ground that he is owner in possession of ½ share in the suit property and that the other co- sharers/ his family members had relinqushed their shares to the petitioner/plaintiff. It appears that after the evidence had been led and the case was fixed for arguments, petitioner-plaintiff moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the rest of the co-sharers who had relinqushed their shares in favour of the petitoner-plaintiff. The said application was CR NO.1252/2009 2 contested by the defendants-respondents. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides dismissed the said application. Hence the present revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 did not appear at the time of arguments. No doubt the suit for partition was filed by the petitioner in the year 2002. It is not the case of the defendants-respondents that rest of the co- sharers, who are now sought to be impleaded, have not relinqushed their shares in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. It is also not disputed that even if the remaining co-sharers are now permitted to be impleaded the extent of the shares of the respondents-defendants shall remain the same. It is further not disputed that in the written statement the respondents-defendants had taken a very evasive and discrepant stand thereby raising objection of non-joinder of necessary parties without mentioning the names of the persons who ought to have been arrayed as defendants in the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that in view of the co-sharers, who are now sought to be impleaded, having already relinqushed their shares in favour of petitioner, neither additional issues are required to be framed nor the petitioner is to lead any further evidence. Thus, in my considered opinion, by allowing the impleadment of the co-sharers no prejudice will be caused to respondents-defendants as the extent of their shares shall remain the same, whereas the same would help the Court in effectively and finally adjudicating the rights of the co-sharers. For the reasons stated above, present revision petition is allowed, CR NO.1252/2009 3 impugned order dated 28.1.2009 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner-plaintiff is allowed. The trial Court is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. 18.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge