MAHENDER Vs. PHULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against orders dated 27.10.1998 and 7.1.1999. Vide order dated 27.10.1980, petitioners were held to be necessary parties for being impleaded as such in all the 27 references but impleadment was made subject to their filing list of all the proprietors of the village as also the list of the proprietors who have already sold their share. It was also directed that in case petitioners fail to file their affidavits in this regard by the next date of hearing, their application for impleading them as parties to the reference shall be dismissed with costs of Rs. 1000/-. Vide order dated 7.1.1999, learned Additional District Judge on finding affidavits filed by the petitioner to be vague, dismissed the afore- said application. Hence present revision petition.

(2.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going though the record, I am of the view that orders, i.e. orders dated 27.10.1998 and 7.1.1999, to the extent it made the impeadment of the petitioners conditional are not sustainable in law.

(3.) MR . Vij, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the petitioners have now obtained the list of the proprietors and also the details of the proprietors who have sold their share, which they shall file in Court. Be that as it may, orders under revision are set aside to the extent the learned Additional District Judge has made impleadment of the petitioners conditional on their furnishing the list of proprietors of the village and also the ones who have sold their share. In case petitioners wish to file the list as submitted by their counsel, they shall be at liberty to do so.