C.R.No.6063 of 2009 (O&M)

1

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Decided on February 05,2010.

Rajiv Goel

-- Petitioner

vs.

Sohan Lal Khosla and another

--Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

Present:

Mr.Arun Jindal,Advocate,for the petitioner

Ms. Naiya Gill,Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr.Neeraj Sharma,Advocate,for respondent No.2.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral)

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.

Brief facts of the case are that a suit for permanent injunction

has been filed by the plaintiff Sohan Lal Khosla against Municipal 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

C.R.No.6063 of 2009 (O&M)

2

passage within seven days.

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

alongwith 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.

During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an

application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. 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

C.R.No.6063 of 2009 (O&M)

3

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.

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.

Learned trial Court, howeve