Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1668 (PNJ)

Gamdoor Singh v. Naresh Kumar

2012-12-01

L.N.MITTAL

body2012
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral);— In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, order dated 16.3.2011 passed by the trial court is under challenge. Respondents no.1 to 3 (plaintiffs) filed suit against respondents no. 4 to 8/defendants for partition of 28 kanals 5 marlas land. Trial court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26.9.2005, Annexure P/2. However, first appeal has been allowed by lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 12.1.2006 Annexure P/3 and thereby preliminary decree for partition of the aforesaid suit land measuring 28 kanals 5 marlas has been passed. Thereafter plaintiffs have filed application for preparation of final decree of partition. During pendency of the said application, petitioner and his brother Balbir Singh moved separate applications for impleading them as party to the final partition proceedings alleging that they also being co-sharers in the disputed land are necessary party to the proceedings. The said applications were opposed by the plaintiffs alleging that the applicants Balbir Singh and Gamdoor Singh are not co-sharers in the suit land as per jamabandi for the year 1998-99, Ex. P/1 produced in the suit. Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 16.3.2011 has dismissed both the applications of Balbir Singh and Gamdoor Singh. Feeling aggrieved, Gamdoor Singh has filed this revision petition. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file whereas none has appeared for the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is also co-sharer in the khewat of the suit land as depicted by copy of jamabandi for the year 1998-99 Annexure P/1 and copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-04 Annexure P/6 and therefore, the petitioner is necessary party to the suit. It was submitted that suit land being part of the same khewat cannot be partitioned in the absence of all co-sharers of the khewat. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same cannot be accepted. Suit land measuring 28 kanals 5 marlas has been described in decree sheets Annexures P/2 and P/3. None of the khasra numbers of the suit land finds mentioned in jamabandi Annexure P/1 and jamabandi Annexure P/6 produced by the petitioner in the revision petition. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be said to be co-sharer in the suit land notwithstanding that he may co-sharer in other land of the same khewat. None of the khasra numbers of the suit land finds mentioned in jamabandi Annexure P/1 and jamabandi Annexure P/6 produced by the petitioner in the revision petition. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be said to be co-sharer in the suit land notwithstanding that he may co-sharer in other land of the same khewat. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to be proper or necessary party to the suit or proceedings for final decree of partition. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that application moved by petitioner for becoming party to the proceedings for final decree of partition has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed. CM Nos. 30002-03.CII of 2011 for impleading applicants Amrit Pal etc. mentioned in paragraph 9 of the application and for vacating stay order passed in the revision petition are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.