PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs: "1. may kindly quash and set aside the impugned order dated 05.02.2014 and application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 may kindly be allowed as prayed for. 2. May kindly grant the costs for the filing of the present writ petition to the petitioners. 3. Any other order favourable to the petitioners may also be passed."
(2.) Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioner is the owner of the house at ward No. 6 Nagarpalika Rawatsar for which the certificate was issued on 22.07.1983 and boundaries were demarcated by the Nagarpalika Rawatsar.
(3.) The petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondent on the ground that the property in dispute is in his ownership and possession from last 55-60 years over which he has constructed a residential house and 9 shops. The petitioner came to know that some kind of transaction of sale regarding the property in question has happened in favour of Manoj Kumar and further in favour of Heera Lal and then Sushil Kumar. Upon such information, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC seeking to implead the said Sushil Kumar as a party. The learned court below has, however, dismissed the said application on the ground that the suit is for permanent injunction and the petitioner has not mentioned that Sushil Kumar is interfering with the possession of the petitioner. 3A. Learned counsel for the respondent has refuted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.;