IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6300 of 2010 Date of decision: February 25, 2011 Surat Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Dharambir Patwari and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J The petitioner Surat Singh had filed a suit against Dharambir Patwari and Dalbir Singh seeking injunction restraining them from raising any construction so as to block his widow. But, during the pendency of the suit it was informed by the petitioner that the Municipal Council, Hansi in connivance with the respondents had raised illegal construction and chocked the window in question in order to include the public street into the houses of defendants and also raised illegal toilets in the public street. Thus, the petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Municipal Council, Hansi as party defendant before the trial court which was dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The petitioner appears to be on the wrong track. Earlier he had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC without filing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The said application being mis- conceived was dismissed on 7.1.2010. The said order was never challenged by the petitioner by way of any revision petition. Thereafter, he moved an Civil Revision No. 6300 of 2010 -2- *** application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Municipal Council, Hansi as party-defendant, but without claiming amendment of the plaint qua the allegations against Municipal Council, Hansi. Thus, the application for impleading the Municipal Council, Hansi is certainly mis-conceived. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. However, the observations made herein above will not effect the merits of the case. February 25, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge