CMPMO No. 18 of 2010 24.2.2010 Present:- Mr. Ajay Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P.M.Negi with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate Generals for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. P.P.Chauhan, counsel for respondent No.4. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.II, Dharamshala allowing the application of proforma respondent No.4 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading as defendant. The facts, in brief, are that petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondents No.1 to 3 regarding land comprised in khasra No. 1195 measuring 3-24-37 H.M. tikka Dargela Mouza Rehlu, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra on the ground that he is exclusive owner in possession of the land comprised in khasra No. 1195 as per jamabandi for the year 2003-04. The respondents No.1 to 3 had tried to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner and had also tried to remove the boundary wall of the suit land, in these circumstances, the suit was filed. The respondents No.1 to 3 had contested the suit by filing written statement. The proforma respondent No.4 has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for impleadment as defendant on the ground that adjacent to the suit land, land comprised in khasra No. 1137/1106 measuring 4-35-12 Hects. Situate at Mohal Goju, Rodi, Mauza Rehlu, Tehsil - 2 - Shahpur, District Kangra is owned by respondent No.1, who has given land measuring 3-39-12 Hects comprised in Khasra No. 1137/1106 by way of patta and sale deeds to proforma respondent No.4. There is a boundary dispute in between the two aforesaid pieces of land. In the demarcation carried out recently, Tehsildar, Dharamshala who was appointed as Local Commissioner by the Court, 8/9 kanals of the land of proforma respondent No.4 has been wrongly shown by the Local Commissioner as part of the land of petitioner. The proforma respondent No.4 is interested and affected person, therefore, a prayer was made for impleadment of proforma respondent No.4 as defendant in the suit. The learned trial Court has allowed the application on 17.12.2009. In the suit, no averment has been made against the proforma respondent No.4, the suit is simple for injunction on the ground that respondents No.1 to 3 are threatening to interfere in the possession of the petitioner on the suit land. The proforma respondent has not asserted any right in land comprised in khasra No. 1195. The case of the proforma respondent No.4 is that respondent No.1 has given land comprised in khasra No.1137/1106 to proforma respondent No.4 either on patta or by way of sale deeds. The petitioner is dominus litis as far as the suit is concerned. The petitioner has not alleged anything regarding the interest of proforma respondent No.4 in the plaint nor he - 3 - has claimed any right on khasra No. 1137/1106. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is ready to face the dismissal of the suit in case it is found that proforma respondent No.4 is a necessary party in the suit. He, however, has submitted that proforma respondent No.4 cannot be impleaded as defendant in the suit against the wish of petitioner. I have gone through the pleadings. In the plaint nothing has been pleaded against the interest of proforma respondent No.4 regarding land comprised khasra No.1195 nor it is the case of the proforma respondent No.4 that he has any right over khasra No. 1195 which is the subject matter of the suit. The presence of proforma respondent No.4 is not required in the suit to adjudicate the real controversy between petitioner and respondents No.1 to 3. In case proforma respondent No.4 has any grievance against the petitioner regarding khasra No. 1137/1106 in that case proforma respondent No.4 has independent right to institute suit against the petitioner. Thus, taken from any angle, the impugned order is not sustainable. The petition is accordingly allowed, the impugned order is set-aside. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the court below on 19.3.2010. The record of the court below be sent immediately so as to reach before the date fixed. CMP No. 36 of 2010 Infructuous in view of disposal of the main petition. Interim order dated 13.1.2010 stands vacated. February 24, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.