CR No. 508 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. Nos. 2492, 20716-17-CII of 2209 & CR No. 508 of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.9.2009 Smt. Amar Kaur and others ....Petitioners. Versus Balkar Singh and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. D.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. Nos. 2492 and 20716-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.M. No. 20717-CII of 2009 This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for placing on record death certificate of respondent No.3-Tehal Singh as Annexure P-5. Annexure P-5 filed along with the application is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CM stands disposed of accordingly. C.R. No. 508 of 2009 The applicant-respondent No.3 claimed that he had CR No. 508 of 2009 -2- purchased the suit land from Pritam Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, vide registered sale deed No. 2543/1 dated 3.12.1963 and mutation No. 3557 was sanctioned in that regard. After having purchased the same, he had leased out it to one Balkar Singh vide registered lease-deed No. 3277 dated 16.12.1967 and mutation No. 4104 was sanctioned on 16.12.1967 to that effect. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by respondent No.3 claiming himself to be proper and necessary party in the suit. The said application having been allowed by the trial court vide order dated 6.12.2008, the plaintiff- petitioner has impugned the same by way of present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The trial court holding that respondent No.3 was a necessary and proper party to the suit had impleaded him as defendant. The observations of the trial court in para 6 of its order, read thus:- “6. Plaintiffs who are successors of Pritam Singh filed the present suit against Balkar Singh defendant no.1 challenging the entries in the name of Balkar Singh which are existing in the column of cultivation in revenue record. Plaintiffs are claiming that it is they who are the owners in possession of the suit land bearing Rect. No. 63 Khasra no. 24/2 (4-18). Defendant no.1 Balkar Singh was proceeded ex parte. The applicant on the other hand is claiming that he purchased the suit land from Pritam Singh predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff in 1963 vide CR No. 508 of 2009 -3- registered sale deed No. 2543/1 dated 3.12.1963 and after purchasing the same he leased out the same to Balkar Singh vide registered Pattanama No. 3277 dated 16.12.1967. There is on record mutation No. 3557 regarding the sale of the suit land by Pritam Singh to the applicant and there is also on record mutation no. 4104 regarding Pattanama executed by applicant in favour of Balkar Singh. On perusal of the revenue record being the jamabandies for the year 1963-64 onwards it is evident that Balkar Singh is being shown to be in cultivating possession of the suit land. Thus, with regard to the suit land and its possession entries, there are rival claims of plaintiff as well as the applicant and with regard to the suit land plaintiffs have filed the present suit challenging the entry in favour of Balkar Singh who is shown to be in cultivating possession of the suit land. Said Balkar Singh was said to have been given land on patta by the applicant. Under these facts and circumstances, the judgment relied upon by counsel for the plaintiff is not applicable to the facts of the present case. For proper adjudication of the matter involved in the present suit, the applicant is a necessary and proper party to the present suit. Hence, the present application is allowed and the applicant is impleaded as defendant in the present CR No. 508 of 2009 -4- suit.” In view of the above logical conclusions arrived at by the trial court, this Court is satisfied that there is no illegality or perversity in the order dated 6.12.2008 passed by the trial court which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, finding no merit in this revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. September 10, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE