Civil Revision No. 3591 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3591 of 2011 Date of Decision: 30.5.2011 *** Smt. Dharampal .. Petitioner Vs. Harshinder Kaur Saghera & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Sharan Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is one of the defendants in the suit for possession filed by respondent No.1, in respect of House No.55, Sector 9-A, Chandigarh, wherein, according to the plaintiff, the defendants have illegally trespassed on the first floor. However, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of Jasleen Kaur, the daughter of the petitioner(proforma respondent No.4 herein), as defendant No.5. Though the application was resisted by the defendants, but the learned trial Court vide order dated 7.12.2010 allowed the same, leading to the institution of the present civil revision. Heard. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that initially Jasleen Kaur was arrayed as one of the defendants in the suit, but lateron, the counsel for the plaintiff had given her up. The plaintiff claimed that she never consented for such deletion of the name of defendant Jasleen Kaur and also furnished an affidavit in this regard. According to the plaintiff the defendants had trespassed into the house while as per defendants, the house in dispute in HUF property and none has trespassed into it. In this view of the matter, finding Jasleen Kaur, the daughter of the petitioner as necessary Civil Revision No. 3591 of 2011 2 party, the learned trial Court rightly allowed the application. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 30, 2011 Jiten