K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) In this writ petition the short question involved is whether the petitioners are entitled to the adjustment of 3 annas valuation claimed by them. From the material on the record of this case, it appears that Babban had transferred his chak No. 3 to Inder, Sunder, Sukhai and Munder. In the impugned Judgement, it has been observed by the revisional court that the petitioners can get his valuation from other chak allotted to Babban. It is noteworthy that after execution of the sale - deed in favour of Sunder and others, a portion of chak No. 3 of Babban was allotted to the petitioners, therefore, the present controversy in this writ petition.
(2.) Before me an objection has been raised that the petitioners have not impleaded one of the vendees, namely, Munder, therefore, no effective relief can be granted to the petitioners. In this connection paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit is relevant. In reply to the aforesaid paragraph, it has been stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the contents of paragraphs 10 and 11 of the writ petition and the record of Writ petition No. 16867 of 1984, Ram Iqbal Singh and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others may be seen. After seeing the record of the aforesaid writ petition No. 16867 of 1984, I think that Munder is a necessary party and behind his back no effective rebel can be granted to the petitioners.
(3.) I wanted to give time to the parties to file supplementary affidavit in this case to bring out the correct fact whether Munder was a party in the case in which the impugned Judgement had been rendered. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is not necessary for him to bring this fact on the recom. According to him, it is the duty of the counsel for the opposite parties to have brought this fact specifically on the record, It has also been stressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as there is no document in support of the preliminary objection raised on behalf of opposite parties that Munder was a party in the reference which has been decided by the impugned Judgement dated 6-1-1986, therefore, no duty is cast in the petitioners to bring this fact to the notice of this court whether Munder was a party in the case. Rather, it has been asserted that Munder was not a party in the case which has been decided through the impugned Judgement dated 6-1-1986.;