1 This revision arises out of an order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Patiala dated 10-8-2009, vide which an application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC) by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2 Brief facts of the case are that a suit for permanent injunction has been filed by the plaintiff-Sohan Lal Khosla against Munici pal Council, Sanaur, seeking to restrain it from interfering in his peaceful possession over the private passage measuring 200 square yards purchased by him vide sale deed dated 25-1-1999 and to take action in pursuance of notice dated 13-10-2005 issued by the defendants to remove obstruction from the private passage within seven days.

3 In the plaint, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, has pleaded that he owned an ancestral house abutting Khola measuring 200 square yard owned by Krishan Murti son of Dharam Pal and Chaman Parkash Ex-President, M.C. Sanaur son of Jagan Nath and there was a private passage 3-6" in front of his house which goes up to that khola only and there was no other house in that street. He had purchased the said khola along with the private passage from the aforesaid persons vide registered sale deed dated 25-1- 1999. Originally, before purchasing the said khola by the plaintiff, there were five outlets which fell in the drain in front of the house of the plaintiff and there was two ventilators towards the said private passage. Due to submerging of the water of outlets of Rajiv Goel (petitioner) the condition of the house of the plaintiff had become so drastic that it could collapse at any time. It is further averred that the plaintiff after demolishing his old house submitted a map, duly signed, for constructing his house, for its sanction to the defendants, but the defendants-Municipal Council threatened the plaintiff to take possession of the said house forcibly which led to the filing of the suit for permanent injunction.

4 During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC for impleading himself as a party-defendant on the ground that the plaintiff is alleging the public street to be a private street whereas it is a public street having its width at the beginning as 3-6" and in the end 7-6". The street is having a concrete flooring laid by the M.C. in which there is a pucca drain in which waste water of the house of the applicant is discharged. There is a water pipe which comes from the street to the house of the petitioner and three ventilators of his house opens in the street. It was specifically alleged in para 3 of the application that the plaintiffs are influential persons and as per the knowledge of the petitioner, they are trying to change the counsel of the M.C. in this case so that other counsel may act as per their wishes.

5 The application was contested by the plaintiff by filing reply in which concrete flooring of the street was admitted, but it was claimed that the same was done by the previous owner. Ventilators of the petitioner were admitted but it was claimed that it was opened with the permission of the previous owner. In reply to para 3 of the application, it was evasively alleged that the averments made are wrong. Meaning thereby it was admitted that M.C. is likely to change the Counsel/Advocate.

6 Learned trial Court, however, dismissed the application vide the impugned order dated 10-8-2009 observing thus :

"After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, and have also gone through the case file very carefully, from the perusal of the file, it comes out that present plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants i.e. Municipal Corporation, Sanaur not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the private street which is a passage 3-6" to Khola measuring 200 square yards purchased vide sale deed dated 25-1-1999. Though the plaintiff mentioned the words private street in the heading of the plaint as well as in