JUDGMENT

Lok Pal Singh, J. - Since common question of facts and law are involved in these two revisions, therefore, both the revisions are being decided by a common judgment and order.

2. Civil Revision No.73 of 2020 is directed against the order dated 16.10.2020 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haridwar in O.S. No.310 of 2019 Sita Ram and another vs. Commandant, whereby the learned trial court has directed identification, demarcation of the property of the plaintiffs with the help of revenue authorities in compliance of interim order dated 08.01.2020, whereas Civil Revision No.75 of 2020 has been filed to set aside the order dated 20.12.2019 whereby the application paper no.26C moved by the revisionist under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as CPC) has been dismissed.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiffs/respondent nos.1 and 2 instituted a suit being O.S. No.310 of 2019 in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar against the defendant/respondent no.3 for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from raising the boundary wall and interfering in the occupation, possession of the plaintiffs. In the said suit, the revisionist moved an impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC for getting impleaded in the suit, on the ground, that in respect of the same property, a declaratory suit was filed by him under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which is pending adjudication wherein despite the status quo order dated 04.03.2013 the plots in question have illegally been transferred to plaintiffs on 16.12.2013 and 18.12.2013, over which the revisionist has been and is in possession.

4. Against the said impleadment application, the plaintiffs filed their objections. The trial court, vide order dated 20.12.2019, dismissed the revisionist's application on the ground that the suit for declaration filed by the revisionist has already been dismissed by the trial court and the same has attained finality upto the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court, as such the revisionist is not a necessary party.

5. On 08.01.2020, the trial court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the temporary injunction application moved by the plaintiffs, thereby restraining the defendants from interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved an application paper no.52C for issuing a direction to the S.D.M. Haridwar to identify and demarcate the land as per the report of the Tehsildar dated 19.06.2019, stating that the defendant is flouting the interim order dated 08.01.2020 passed by the trial court on one or other pretext, wherefor the plaintiff has filed a contempt case being registered as misc. case no.06/2020 before the court, which is pending adjudication. The defendant filed objections to the said application, denying the contents of the application. It was contended that, under the garb of permanent injunction suit, the plaintiff intend to settle his boundary dispute, which does not come within the jurisdiction of the civil court. It was further contended that the application moved by the plaintiff for identification and demarcation cannot be allowed by the civil court, said jurisdiction lies with the revenue court. The trial court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the application paper no.52C directing the S.D.M. Haridwar to identify and demarcate the land in dispute with the assistance of other revenue officials so that the plaintiff may raise boundary wall.

CLR No.75 of 2020

6. Insofar as impleadment application is concerned, the revisionist though has sought impleadment in the suit alleging that in respect of the same property, a declaratory suit was filed by him under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R., but the fact remains that he has lost the battle upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in regard to his alleged rights over th