C.R. No. 4712 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4712 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 19, 2011 Bhupinder Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Gurbaksh Singh and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.S.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff has filed this revision petition against the order dated November 30, 2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by Gurbaksh Singh, the father of plaintiff- petitioner and defendant- respondent. A perusal of the file indicates that the plaintiff- petitioner is the real brother of defendant- respondent Iqbal Singh and the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant- landlord for C.R. No. 4712 of 2010 (O&M) [2] interfering in the standing crops over his share in the property measuring 36 kanals 19 marlas mentioned in heading of the plaint as per the jamabandi for the year 2004-05. During the pendency of the suit, the father of the plaintiff and defendant filed an application for impleading him as a party claiming that he was owner as well as in possession of the property in dispute. The trial Court has allowed the said application for impleadment of Gurbaksh Singh observing that impleadment of said Gurbaksh Singh is necessary for final settlement and adjudication of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The plaintiff has preferred this revision petition on the ground that no relief and title has been claimed in the property against Gurbaksh Singh. It has also been submitted that Gurbaksh Singh has died during the pendency of the suit as such the revision petition should be allowed. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order, I am of the opinion that there is dispute between two real brothers regarding a crop sown on land measuring 36 kanals 19 marlas. The application of the father of the parties has been allowed taking into consideration various circumstances mentioned in the application indicating that the added defendant claims his better possessory title on the property in dispute having manager and coparcener of the property. The dispute also involves the controversy regarding family settlement. Irrespective of the fact that now the added party has died, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court as a civil Court has got a jurisdiction under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC to add any party at any stage of the proceedings whose presence before the Court is deemed necessary in C.R. No. 4712 of 2010 (O&M) [3] order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. There does not appear to be any illegally in the impugned order. Dismissed. January 19, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE