PARTAPO Vs. RATTAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 10.4.2009 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the application filed by the petitioner, who is defendant No.1 before the learned trial Court for impleading the State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary Revenue and Settlement Collector as defendants in the suit has been rejected.

(2.) The suit out of which the present petition arises was filed by respondent No.1 Rattan Chand against defendants No. 1 to 6. In this suit the plaintiff wanted to recover the sale consideration and other expenses, interest, etc. in respect of the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1, who also acted on behalf of defendants No.2 to 6, in favour of the plaintiff. The Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. case of the defendants appears to be that despite such sale deed the possession of land was never handed over to them since proforma defendants No. 7 to 9 obtained a decree after execution of the sale deed that they are in possession of the suit land.

(3.) The contention raised by the petitioner is that in the revenue record defendants No. 1 to 6 had been shown as owner in possession and they executed the sale deed believing such entries to be correct and therefore, the State of H.P. through Secretary Revenue and Settlement Collector are necessary parties to the suit. The learned trial Court rejected this application on the ground that this plea, if at all available to the defendants No. 1 to 6, was available in the suit filed against them by defendants No. 7 to 9 or proceedings arising out of that suit but not in the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff.