BALKAR SINGH Vs. CHARANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Balkar Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 15.04.2010 (Annexure P-7), passed by the trial court, thereby allowing application (Annexure P-5) filed by respondents no. 2 and 3 for impleading them as party to the suit, which has been instituted by plaintiff-petitioner against respondent no. 1 as sole defendant.

(2.) CASE of the plaintiff is that Brij Mohan and Khushal Singh were owners in possession of the suit land. Brij Mohan sold his share to the plaintiff by way of agreement-cum-receipt, after receiving entire sale consideration and delivered possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. After death of Khushal Singh, his son Balwant Singh sold the suit land and other land to the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 13.03.2009. Accordingly, plaintiff claimed to be in exclusive possession of the suit land. However, in revenue record, Jagjit Singh ­ late husband of respondent no. 1 ­ defendant was recorded to be in possession of the suit land. Plaintiff's grievance is that the said entry of possession of defendant's husband in the revenue record is wrong and illegal etc. The plaintiff also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and from dispossessing him therefrom. Respondents no. 2 and 3, in their application (Annexure P-5), alleged that they are also co-sharers in the suit land being among the heirs of Khushal Singh (being his daughter's sons), and therefore, they are necessary party to the suit.

(3.) LEARNED trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-7), has allowed the application filed by respondents no. 2 and 3 and they have been ordered to be impleaded as defendants to the suit. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition to assail the said order. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.