IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1317 of 2011 Vishamber Dayal S/O Tala Ram and two others. … Petitioners. Versus Hari Shankar Saran Srivastava and 3 others. … Respondents. Mr. S.K.Jain, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Date July 01, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J.(Oral) (Stay Application No. 6537 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 7-4-2011 and dated 12-5-2011 (Annexure Nos. 15 and 17 respectively to the petition). By the order dated 7-4-2011, the application for impleadment moved by third respondent-applicant Kripa Shankar Tiwari was allowed by the trial court and by order dated 12-5-2011, the revision filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners and respondent no. 4 herein against the order dated 7-4-2011 has been dismissed at admission stage by the Incharge District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. It appears from a perusal of the record that the petitioners and respondent no. 4, who are plaintiffs, filed a suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants-respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rudrapur (Udham Singh Nagar), which was registered as Civil Suit No. 78 of 2007 claiming themselves to be Bhumidhars with transferable rights over the suit land described in paragraph nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint. The plaintiffs have sought the relief that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 or their agents etc. be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. 2 The petitioners have arrayed the plaintiff no.4 Girija Devi as proforma respondent no.4 to the writ petition. According to the petitioners, the plaintiffs are the recorded tenure holders of the land in question. During the pendency of the suit, the third respondent Kripa Shankar Tiwari moved impleadment application (paper no. 51-C) before the trial court on the ground that the land in question was allotted to his father late Sri Jagat Narayan Tiwari and he is the legal heir of late Jagat Narayan Tiwari and in possession of the land in question. During the settlement proceedings, the old number of the land has been changed and new number has been allotted as plot no.147. The third respondent claimed right of his father on the basis of some compromise arrived at in Civil Suit No. 134 of 1968 as mentioned in paragraph no.5 of the application. He alleged that he is a necessary party to the suit. The plaintiffs filed objection (paper no. 65-C) against the application for impleadment moved by the third respondent on the ground that they have purchased the land in question from Jitendra Singh and Lallan Tiwari in the year 1983, who were recorded as Bhumidhar with transferable rights at the time of sale deed, which was made in their favour. On the basis of the sale deed, their names were also mutated in the revenue record. The plaintiffs also alleged that the third respondent has never been in possession of the land in question. A perusal of the order dated 7-4-2011 passed by the trial court goes to show that the third respondent had filed Revenue Suit No. 22/6 of 2008-2009 Kripa Shankar Tiwari Vs. Shyam Lal and others under Section 229B of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short the Act) in the court of Assistant Collector 1st Class Gadarpur, wherein the petitioners- plaintiffs have been arrayed as defendants to the suit. The said suit is still pending for disposal before the Revenue Court. The third respondent has alleged that he has vested interest in the land in question. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that so far as the suit under Section 229B of the Act filed by the respondent no.3 against the petitioners is concerned, the suit is for declaration in his favour and the jurisdiction lies with the revenue Court and the civil court cannot make any declaration in favour of the third respondent. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rudrapur after hearing both the parties vide order dated 7-4-2011 has allowed the application for impleadment (paper no. 51-C) on the ground that the suit under Section 229B of the Act is pending between the parties in the revenue Court regarding the same land, which is involved in the civil suit, therefore, the third respondent-applicant is a proper and necessary party to the suit and opportunity be given to him. Aggrieved by the order dated 7-4-2011, the petitioners have preferred revision before the District Judge, which was decided by the In-charge District Judge Udham Singh Nagar (Mr. Ashish Naithani) on 12-5-2011. The learned In-charge District Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist did not find favour with him and has dismissed the revision at the admission stage. I have perused the impugned orders passed by both the courts below. This fact is not disputed that the petitioners, as on today, are recorded tenure holders. According to the third respondent, he claims to be in possession and has filed a suit under Section 229B of the Act before the Assistant Collector 1st Class for declaration of his rights in the revenue Court. In that suit, the petitioners are arrayed as defendants. The present suit has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs for permanent injunction on the ground that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are interfering in their peaceful possession. In the injunction suit, the possession of the plaintiffs has also to be examined by the trial Court whether the plaintiffs are in actual possession of the land in question. Since the plaintiffs as well as the third respondent both are claiming their possession, therefore, in my view the learned trial court has rightly 4 allowed the impleadment application of third respondent to be arrayed as a defendant in the suit. No prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiff-petitioners by impleadment of third respondent as a defendant to the suit, particularly when the revenue suit has been filed by the third respondent against the plaintiffs under Section 229B of the Act. In any view of the matter, I find no error in the impugned orders passed by the two courts below. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed outright at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. However, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rudrapur (Udham Singh Nagar) is directed to decide the Civil Suit No. 78 of 200 on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously as far as possible. Both the parties including the third respondent shall also cooperate in the speedy disposal of the suit before the trial court. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP