JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral) The applicants, Shri Praful Kuthiala and Shri Rajeev Kuthiala, have filed the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) for impleadment as parties to the present suit, basing their claim to the suit land being successors-in-interest of late Rai Sahib Puran Mal s/o late Shri Nidha Mal, who according to them had purchased the same pursuant to the auction sale held on 21 .4.1926 by the official receiver in insolvency proceedings against firm M/s Gappa Mal Fondu Mal, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla for a sum of Rs. 9,250/-. 2. Shorn of details, facts necessary for disposal of the present application are that a big chunk of unmeasured forest land measuring 336 bighas, situate in Jungal Nagni, Phati Shilihar, Kothi Khokhan, Tehsil and District Kullu was initially owned by the aforesaid firm M/s Gappa Mal Fondu Mal, and pursuant to the intervening transactions the same came to be owned by the plaintiffs. However, in the meanwhile, the State Government initiated proceedings against the plaintiffs under the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (in short, ‘Public Premises Act’). Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs have challenged those proceedings under the Public Premises Act by way of present suit for declaration with consequential relief of perpetual prohibitory injunction. 3.Against the foregoing back ground, the application for impleadment has been filed simply on the ground that the plaintiffs themselves have averred in para 3 of the plaint that the suit land was at one point of time owned by late Rai Sahib Puran Mal, predecessor-in­interest of the applicants. However, according to the plaintiffs, they have acquired title to the suit land pursuant to the intervening transactions culminating in their ownership. 4. The prayer for impleadment is opposed by the plaintiffs mainly on the ground that the applicants may exercise the right to seek their remedy, if any, in accordance with law by filing appropriate proceedings and they cannot join as parties to the present suit, which is basically a litigation between the plaintiffs and the State Government with regard to ownership of the suit land, which according to the plaintiffs vests with them, which assertion is seriously challenged by the State. 5.In support of their prayer for impleadment, the applicants have relied upon a number of authorities reported as: i) Sumtibai and others Versus Paras Finance Co. and others, (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 82; ii) L. Puttaiah & Ors. Versus Annaiappa (deceased) by Lrs, & Ors., 2004(1) Civil Court Cases 61 (Karnataka); iii) Achanta Seetharamayya Versus Bhamidipati Gopalakrishna Murthy & others, 1994 (1) Civil Court Cases 508 (A.P.); iv) Mohan Singh Versus Angrej Kaur, 1997(Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 332 (P&H): v) Naresh Kumar Versus Surinder Singh, 200 1(2) Civil Court Cases 580 (P&H); and vi) Gopinath Dixit Versus Rama Chandra Dixit & Anr., 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 117 (Orissa). 6. The crux of the legal proposition stated in these citations is that if a party can show a fair semblance of title or interest, he can certainly file an application for impleadment. 7. Conversely the plaintiffs seek support from the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Versus Municipal Corporation of greater Bombay and others, (1992) 2 Supreme Court Cases 524, that “a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action”, is not entitled for impleadment in an ongoing litigation between the parties already before the Court. 8. On a bare perusal of the averments set up in the application for impleadment, it is manifest that the applicants are mainly basing their claim on the averments set up on behalf of the plaintiffs in the plaint, as noticed hereinabove, without, prima-facie, showing that title to the suit land held by late Rai Sahib Puran Mal as far back as in the year 1926, still continues to vest with him through his successors-in­interest including the applicants, who claim themselves to be so. Furthermore, apart from making a bald averment that the application for amendment has been moved after the applicants came to know about pendency of the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the State and its functionaries, no specific date, month and year has been given as to when they acquired knowledge about it. Furthermore, apart from making a bald averment that the application for amendment has been moved after the applicants came to know about pendency of the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the State and its functionaries, no specific date, month and year has been given as to when they acquired knowledge about it. 9.Thus, I have no hesitation to conclude that the applicants have not been able to show, prima-facie, that they are entitled to be impleaded as parties to the present suit, so as to enable them to set up and vindicate their claim to the suit land being its owners, though they may have an independent right to assert such claim and vindicate the same by taking out appropriate proceedings against those, who according to them are denying their status as such. 10.In view of the above, the application is dismissed. However, it goes without saying that the applicants shall be at liberty to assert and vindicate their claim, if any, by way of appropriate proceedings in a Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law. 11.The application stands disposed of.