IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.2592/2009 Date of Decision: 7.5.2009. Surjit Singh and others ..........Petitioners. Versus Dalip Singh and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.T.P.Singh,Advocate for the petitioners.. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20.3.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Patiala, dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioners for impleading them as defendants in the suit titled “Dalip Singh vs. The Collector Patiala and others”. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Dalip Singh-plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein) filed a suit for mandatory injunction against respondents 2 to 5 herein for getting the mutation entered and attested in his favour in respect of suit land descried in the head note of the plaint. It was the case of Dalip Singh that his father Inder Singh had purchased the suit land from one Sham Sunder son of Lachhman Dass vide registered sale deed on 29.6.1961. Inder Singh, father of the plaintiff died on 22.6.1975 and as such after his death, the plaintiff inherited the said land, but being illiterate could not get the land mutated in his favour. In the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, it was case of the petitioners that they are in possession of the suit land since 1997 and as such they CR NO.2592/2009 2 were necessary party to the suit as decision of the same would have a direct bearing on their rights. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides dismissed the application moved by the petitioners. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the paper book. The learned trial Court while dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, found that as per material available on record the ownership of the suit property is in favour of plaintiff/respondent no.1 vide registered sale deed dated 29.6.1961 and that he has already applied to the revenue authorities for sanctioning mutation in his favour. It was further found by the learned trial Court that proper order sanctioning mutation in favour of plaintiff respondent has also been passed by the revenue authorities. The learned trial Court also rightly held that petitioners, who claim to be in possession of the suit land, cannot be impleaded as necessary party to the suit merely on the basis of an affidavit of one Maharaj Singh and mere production of khasra girdwari by them would not confer any title upon them when the plaintiff has duly substantiated his claim,through his father, who during his lifetime had, vide registered sale deed dated 29.6.1961, purchased the suit land. Even otherwise, prayer in the suit is for effecting mutation entries as the legacy of a person cannot be kept in abeyance In my opinion, the view taken by the learned trial court is perfectly legal and justified and no fault can be found with the same. No merit. Dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. 7.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge