PRITAM SINGH Vs. MANMOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Miscellaneous No.22055-CII of 2016

(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction on the basis of the wrong revenue entries appearing in his name, whereby, he has been shown to be in cultivating possession of the suit property, but in reality he never came in possession independently of the suit property, rather, entries are wrong and in fact, the property in question was in the name of the petitioner, who further leased out the same to respondent No.3- defendant. Thus, no effective decree can be passed in the absence of the petitioner, who otherwise, is a necessary party. The impugned order is based upon conjectures and surmises.

(3.) This court has given a deep thought to the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, but find the same to be without any legal and factual substance.