IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.2758/2009 Date of Decision: 15.5.2009. Kesa Ram ..........Petitioner. Versus Jagira Ram and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Vivek Suri,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). CM No.11625-CII seeking exemption from filing the certified copies of Annexures P/1 to P/5 and P/7 allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CR No.2758/2009. Petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure P/6) passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division)Patiala, dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner-applicant for being impleaded as defendant no.7 in a suit for declaration filed by respondents 1 and 2-plaintiffs. The facts necessary for the decision of the present revision petition are that respondents 1 and 2 namely Jangira Ram and Bolda Ram filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 25.7.2007 passed by Additional District Magistrate,Patiala (defendant no.2) providing police help to BDPO and Panchayat Officer,Block Bhunerheri,District Patiala for CR NO.2758/2009 2 removing the alleged encroachment from the land comprised in khasra no.56/19 kanals situated at Village Chaprahar, Tehsil and District Patiala, was illegal, null and void, not binding on the plaintiffs and liable to the withdrawn. In the said suit, the petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as defendant no.7 on the ground that the land in dispute from which encroachment is being sought to be removed is “chappar” land in which he has 2/24th share. It was further alleged that concerning the site in question which is subject matter of the present suit, applicant Kesa Ram has already filed a suit against the present plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 and Bhula Ram, Suneeta Devi restraining them to construct/dug the waste water drain (Nali) at points A to B in front of the house/property owned and possessed by plaintiffs. With these allegations it was averred that impleadment of the applicant-petitioner as defendant no.7 in the suit filed by respondent 1 and 2 was necessary. On the contrary, respondents 1 and 2 contested the said application. It was stated that they had apprehension only against defendants (official respondents) who were directed to remove the encroachment from the site in dispute with the police help. Impleadment of the applicant was also opposed on the ground that no relief was being sought against him. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record dismissed the said application. Hence the present revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that CR NO.2758/2009 3 proforma respondents 3 to 8, who are Government officials are not taking interest in contesting the suit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 and for effective adjudication of the suit impleadment of the petitioner as defendant in the said suit is necessary. I find no merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As already noticed above, the site in question is a chappar. There seems to be some encroachment over the said land. For removal of said encroachment Additional District Magistrate,Patiala (defendant no.2) has passed order dated 25.7.2007 providing police help to concerned BDPO and Panchayat Officer. Aggrieved against that order the respondents 1 and 2 have filed the present suit. Merely on the basis of his apprehension that official defendants will not contest the suit, the applicant-petitioner cannot be permitted to be impleaded as a party to the suit in which no relief is being sought against him. Further, the learned trial Court on the basis of material available on record has also noticed that there is no concern between the suit filed by the applicant-petitioner and plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. 15.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge