M.S. Liberhan, J. - (1.) In this revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Hissar, declining their prayer for being impleaded as defendants in a suit brought by the plaintiff respondent for a declaration and injunction.
(2.) The facts stated by the petitioners are that the plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for declaration that the various orders passed by the Union of India cancelling the arrangement between the plaintiff and the Union of India for unloading the wagons at point 'B' on the ground that the plaintiff secured the arrangement from the Railways by misrepresenting to the Railways to the effect that the site in question was owned by them in spite of the fact that it was a thorough fare are null and void. The plaintiff further sought an injunction on the above facts that the Union of India should be directed to unload their wagons at point 'B' which the petitioners claimed to be a through fare and with respect to which they had an order under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed. The plaintiff-respondent have filed another suit challenging the cancellation of their agreement with the Union of India with respect to the arrangement alleged to have been entered into. In the later suit, the petitioners were impleaded as a party. The petitioners claim that they being the users of the path, are the necessary and proper party and in the eventuality of the suit being decreed, their interest would not only be pre-judicially affected but would be adversely affected inasmuch as they will be deprived of the use Of the public path. In the alternative they claim that they are at least the proper party.
(3.) The plaintiff-respondent controverted the factum only to the extent that the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper party' and contended that the petitioner have no interest in khasra Nos. 8548 and 8554 as the same were never used as a passage and the plaintiff-respondents arc the owners of the same.;