C.R. No. 3796 of 2010 -1- ` ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3796 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 11.08.2010 Dera Sadhan Dadu Panthi Kabaj Mahant Ram Dutt Dass Chela Mohan Dass Dadupanthi Malkan Dera Village Intel Khurd Tehsil and District Jind .......... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Amit K. Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 3.5.2010, passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Jind, vide which application moved by the respondents under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands allowed. The plaintiff / petitioner filed a suit against the State of Haryana and Tehsildar Jind for correction of the revenue record by deleting the name of Devi Ram, who was admittedly the tenant under the petitioner. The applicants by claiming themselves to be legal representatives of Devi Ram moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as party C.R. No. 3796 of 2010 -2- ` ***** by pleading, that they are very necessary party having inherited the tenancy of Devi Ram. The application was opposed by the petitioner, on the plea, that as per Section 59 of Punjab Tenancy Act daughters are not entitled to inherit the tenancy, therefore, the respondents had no right to get themselves impleaded as party. Whereas, the stand of the respondents was, that the tenancy was governed by the Pepsu Tenancy Act, 1985, giving them right of inheritance. The learned trial Court allowed the application, by holding that the question as to whether the tenancy was inherited by the legal representatives of Devi Ram, is to be adjudicated in the suit, therefore, presence of the respondents was necessary for adjudication of the case, being legal representatives of Devi Ram. The exercise of discretion by the learned trial Court can not be said to be perverse or against law which may call interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. 11.08.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE