- (1.) Dismissal of application under Order I Rule 10 CPC of the petitioners-applicants, forms genesis of this revision petition.
(2.) It is claimed by the applicants-petitioners that the plaintiff, respondent No.1 herein and defendant Municipal Council, Thanesar, respondent No.2 herein, are in collusion with each other in order to harm the interest of the Municipal Council. In their application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the applicants-petitioners had brought out details of previous litigation which had been adjudicated between the parties to the present litigation and was ultimately decided against the non-applicant/plaintiff Ishwar Chand, respondent No.1 herein. It is urged that the matter had even gone upto this Court where in Regular Second Appeal No.2851 of 2002 decided on 8.7.2009, claim of plaintiff Ishwar Chand was dismissed.
(3.) On their own, the petitioners do not have got any right, title or interest in the suit property. Perusal of the paper book reveals that two of the petitioners are Municipal Councillors of the respondent Municipal Council whereas yet another is Ex-Vice Chairman of the said council. The inter-se squabbles of the local Municipal Councillors cannot be allowed to be fought in this litigation and it cannot be allowed to be made battlefield for the same.;