PURAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to the Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are as follows :-

(2.) Mr. H.S. Gujral, learned counsel for the petitioner. Contends that the order, dated 26-3-1968, of Tek Chand, J. passed in Civil Writ No. 795 of 1965 suffers from an apparent error inasmuch as it was passed to the prejudice of Puran Singh, the present writ-petitioner, without impleading and hearing him. It is, therefore, urged that the review of that order be entertained and Writ Petition No. 795 of 1965 be redecided after impleading and hearing Puran Singh. This contention is based on the Rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Shivdeo Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1963 AIR(SC) 1909, the head-note of which reads as under :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent contends that though Puran Singh had not been impleaded by Madan Gopal in the previous petition, yet no prejudice has been caused to him on account of this non-joinder as the other benamidars who were his representatives, had been impleaded. The benamidar-respondents had not only opposed the Writ Petition of Madan Gopal, but had also unsuccessfully filed the Letters Patent Appeal against the same. I am also adverted to the observations of Tek Chand, J. at page 6 of the judgment, which is to the effect