***

AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner filed present civil revision against impugned order dated 02.07.2026 (Annexure P-5) vide which learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur has dismissed the application (Annexure P-2) filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC without appreciating the facts and the documents on record.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that Satish Kumar and Kiranjit Kaur filed suit for possession on the basis of agreement to sell dated 14.11.2022 regarding 08 kanals, 10 marlas, 8 sarsai of land as detailed in the plaint along with suit for permanent injunction and in the alternative suit for recovery against Saroop Singh and others. The copy of plaint is Annexure P-1. During the pendency of said civil suit present petitioner/applicant filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading him as party to the suit by taking the stand that he is in possession of 10 kanals, 05 marlas of land which was handed over to him by Saroop Singh (defendant No.1) where he has planted eucalyptus trees on the basis of half batai/half share. Reply was filed to said application by the plaintiffs (Annexure P-3) and did not dispute the existence of eucalyptus trees in the land in question. However, the application was opposed by Saroop Singh and others by filing reply (Annexure P-4) taking the stand that applicant Avtar Singh had no concern with the land or trees standing thereon. After hearing arguments, said application was declined by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur by passing impugned order dated 02.07.2026 (Annexure P-5).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant-Avtar Singh pointed out that since the petitioner is in possession of land measuring 10 kanals, 05 marlas where eucalyptus trees are standing, therefore he is necessary party to the litigation started by the plaintiffs Satish Kumar and Kiranjit Kaur. Without considering the interest of present petitioner, his application has been wrongly declined. Therefore, impugned order dated 02.07.2026 (Annexure P-5) may kindly be set aside by accepting the present civil revision and he may be arrayed as one of the defendants.

4. I have considered the arguments. No purpose would be served by issuing notice to the respondents as the factual position is clear from the documents annexed with the present petition. The copy of plaint (Annexure P-1) shows that Satish Kumar and Kiranjit Kaur have filed suit for possession on the basis of agreement to sell dated 14.11.2022 along with the suit for permanent injunction and alternate relief for recovery against Saroop Singh and others. The copy of said agreement to sell is Annexure P-6. The agreement is pertaining to 08 kanals, 10 marlas, 08 sirsai of land bearing specific khasra number. The aforesaid matter in controversy is between the plaintiffs and the defendants which is to be decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties. Present petitioner-Avtar Singh has no concern with the said agreement to sell dated 14.11.2022 (Annexure P-6). In the application, he has claimed his possession over 10 kanals, 05 marlas of land alleging that he has planted eucalyptus trees thereon, on the basis of half share with Saroop Singh. So far as plaintiffs are concerned, in their reply they have merely admitted the existence of eucalyptus trees whereas the defendants Saroop Singh and others denied the claim of applicant/petitioner-Avtar Singh. To support the application, there is no document on the file to show that Saroop Singh ever handed over any part of the land to petitioner-Avtar Singh nor there is any revenue record to confirm the version of present petitioner.

Therefore, by appreciating the aforesaid factual position, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur rightly declined the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC vide impugned order dated 02.07.2026 (Annexure P-5). I do not find any valid reason to interfere in the said order and the same is accordingly upheld. Present civil revision preferred by the petitioner is accordingly declined.

5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well.

Petition dismissed.

********