Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 123 (HP)

Pritam Singh v. State Of H. P.

2018-01-10

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. - Notice. Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. No notice need be issued to respondents No. 2 to 10. 2. In the pre-lunch session, original counsel representing the petitioner was present. After hearing this matter for some time, on her request, the matter was passed over enabling her to seek instructions. Ms. Rubeena Bhatt, Advocate submits that being in personal difficulty, right now she is not present. Also that, instructions in the matter could not be obtained. 3. It is seen that on the last date also, this matter was adjourned on the request made by learned counsel representing the petitioner. The instructions, if required, should have been obtained for today. 4. On the other hand, the record amply demonstrates that the petitioner is none-else but the applicant in an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which he has filed in lower appellate Court for his impleadment as defendant in the main suit. The said application has been dismissed vide order, Annexure P-1, under challenge in this petition. 5. The land in dispute is 05-54-52 hectares bearing Khasra No. 269. The Jamabandi to this effect has already been placed on record of the main suit. The petitioner claims his possession over a portion thereof i. e. 2-90-00 hectares. In support of his claim, he has produced the record i. e. a complaint made against him to Tehsildar, Indora by one Jarnail Singh on 16. 09. 2015 that he has encroached upon the suit land and that his possession is 50 years old. The report from the Patwari that the suit land to the extent of 2-90-00 hectares is in possession of the petitioner and in the year 2016-17, wheat crop was found to be sown thereon was also obtained. Learned trial Judge has considered the material so produced by the petitioner in support of his claim vis--vis the documents produced by the respondents-plaintiffs 2 to 10 and defendant-State in the trial Court. As a matter of fact, as per Jamabandi, entire suit land was recorded in possession of respondents-plaintiffs in the capacity of non-occupancy tenant, however, during the settlement operation, such entries were deleted and it is for this reason, they filed the suit for seeking declaration, which was decreed. As a matter of fact, as per Jamabandi, entire suit land was recorded in possession of respondents-plaintiffs in the capacity of non-occupancy tenant, however, during the settlement operation, such entries were deleted and it is for this reason, they filed the suit for seeking declaration, which was decreed. As per revenue record, the respondents-plaintiffs and their predecessors-ininterest are/were entered in possession of the suit land right from very beginning. The petitioner was never recorded in possession of the suit land or any portion thereof. On the basis of application made by aforesaid Jarnail Singh against the petitioner to Tehsildar, Indora and the report of Patwari for the reasons already recorded, it is difficult to believe that he is in possession of a portion thereof. 6. Interestingly enough, when the same Patwari who has issued the Khasra Girdawari placed on record by learned Dy. D. A, in which there is no mention of wheat crop sown in the suit land, how the same Patwari could have given another report to the petitioner, mentioning therein that the wheat crop was sown by him over that portion of the suit land, which is in his possession. The application made by aforesaid Jarnail Singh and report submitted by Patwari relied upon by the petitioners seems to be not genuine documents, hence rightly not considered by learned lower appellate Court. The application for impleadment has been filed during the pendency of the appeal without any explanation as to what prevented the petitioner from filing the same during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court. The petitioner, as such, is not a necessary party in the suit. Learned lower appellate Court, therefore, has not committed any illegality or irregularity while dismissing the application. 7. Having said so, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to learned lower appellate Court for records.