Civil Revision No.4405 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4405 of 2008 Date of Decision:30.01.2009 Kishan Kumar & anr. ....petitioners Versus Balak Ram & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Paramvir Singh, Advocate for the respondents **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition are that respondents No.1 to 16 claiming themselves to be tenants filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and for restraining the alleged owners (i.e proforma respondents No.17 to 27) from interfering in their possession. The trial Court vide order dated 12.05.2007 directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession over the suit property till next date of hearing. The petitioners who are not a party to the aforesaid civil suit (which is pending between the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 16 and proforma respondents No.17 to 27) challenged the aforesaid order dated 12.05.2007 on the ground that the plaintiff-respondents gave wrong description of the suit property and in fact the aforesaid property belongs to the petitioners. According to them the impugned order has resulted into a grave and manifest injustice to them, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Admittedly the petitioner is not a party to the suit pending Civil Revision No.4405 of 2008 2 before the trial Court. The petitioner has failed to show that in what manner the impugned order has affected him. It is settled law that the plaintiff is the master of his suit and no person can be arrayed as a defendant/respondent against his wishes if he has not sought any relief against the petitioner. In this case, admittedly, no relief has been sought by the plaintiff-respondent against the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the said order was passed by the trial Court till the next date of hearing i.e.01.06.2007. The petitioners have failed to mention as to what had happened on the next date of hearing and whether the impugned order is still operative. Moroever, if the property in dispute in the aforesaid civil suit belongs to the petitioners as alleged, they could have always approached the civil Court for being impleaded them as a party which has not been done in this case. In view of the aforesaid facts, this revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 30.01.2009 neenu