Civil Revision No. 2888 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2888 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.5.2010 Gurdip Singh and another .. Petitioners v. Gurbachan Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sarwan Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. N. S. Rapri, Advocate for the petitioners. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 26.2.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by respondents No. 4 to 7 under order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as defendants in the suit filed by the petitioners was allowed. Briefly, the pleaded facts are that the petitioners filed a suit for possession of land measuring 5 kanals out of land, as detailed in the plaint, situated in village Muradpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. It was on the basis of the plea that the petitioners had purchased 39 kanals and 14 marlas of land from respondents No. 1 to 3 and they were even put in possession thereof. However, subsequently, it was found that by mistake the share of vendors in the khewat had been shown as 794 as against 661, which was later on corrected. As per the corrected shares of the vendors, they were found owners of only 34 kanals and 14 marlas of land in the khewat. In view of this change in the revenue record, the petitioners filed suit for possession. It was during the pendency of the suit that respondents No. 4 to 7 filed application for being impleaded as defendants in the suit on the plea that they are also co-sharers in the land and their interest will be materially effected if the suit filed by the petitioners is decreed. While accepting the application filed by them, the learned court below directed their impleadment as defendants in the suit. It is against this order that the petitioners are before this Court. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are interested in getting their five kanals of land as they had purchased Civil Revision No. 2888 of 2010 [2] 39 kanals and 14 marlas of land, but possession of 5 kanals was taken from them subsequently after they were put in possession of the entire purchased land. He further submitted that the vendors, from whom the petitioners had purchased the land, are owning much more land in the khewat and he can give any other land also to cover up the deficit. The other co-sharers in the khewat are not the necessary party as such as the claim made by the petitioners in the suit is not going to effect their right in any manner whatsoever. However, at the time of hearing, learned senior counsel did not have any answer to the question as to when they were dispossessed from 5 kanals of land and who had done it. This was in view of the statement of fact mentioned in paragraph 4 of the plaint filed by the petitioners that they were put in possession of the entire purchased land, but still no date is forthcoming as to when they were dispossessed and by whom? Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and perused the paper book. While considering the facts of the present case and also going through the impugned order passed by the learned court below, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It is not in dispute that respondents No. 1 to 3, who had sold the land to the petitioners and respondents No. 4 to 7 are joint owners in a khewat, the land pertaining to which is located at two different places. The case set up by respondents No. 4 to 7 in the application filed by them is that respondents No. 1 to 3 had sold more share in the specific khewat than they owned. It has also been mentioned by the petitioners in the suit filed that in the khewat, out of which they were sold the land and are seeking possession of 5 kanals of land, correction was made by the revenue authorities in the shares of respondents No. 1 to 3 from 794 to 661 share, which comes out to 34 kanals and 14 marlas as against 39 kanals and 14 marlas. Once the entire property is jointly owned by respondents No. 1 to 3 with respondents No. 4 to 7 and the claim of the petitioners is for grant of possession of the part of that property, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in permitting them to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 4.5.2010 mk