Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1537 (PNJ)

R. K. S. Builders v. Bhupinder Kumar

2000-12-14

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 17.9.1999 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jalandhar, who allowed the application of the respondent Bhupinder Kumar under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :- "Bhupinder Kumar filed a suit for possession and for mandatory injunction against M/s K.R.S. Builders and others alleging that he is owner of the property in the head-note of the plaint and that the said property is in the illegal possession of the defendants, who have raised some construction, and, therefore, he may be delivered the possession of the property by giving direction to the defendants to remove the Malba lying on the land in dispute. The suit was contested by the defendants on the plea that they are owners of the property and they have purchased the same from its rightful owners. During the pendency of the suit, one application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the plaintiff on the ground that it has come to his notice that the defendants M/s K.R.S. Builders have further sold the property to various persons and on enquiries of the plaintiff there are few persons to whom the property was been sold and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings the presence of these transferees before the Court is necessary, lest tomorrow complications may not arise for the plaintiff/respondent. This application was contested by the present petitioners on the ground that these transferees are not necessary parties, rather the plaintiff/respondent has not added the previous owners of the property. The application in question is a mala fide affair. The learned trial Court for the following reasons as given in para No. 5 of the impugned order allowed the application :- "I have heard the rival submissions and have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties coupled with the application and reply thereof. I find myself with the respectful submissions of the applicant Shri V.K. Sareen. The learned trial Court for the following reasons as given in para No. 5 of the impugned order allowed the application :- "I have heard the rival submissions and have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties coupled with the application and reply thereof. I find myself with the respectful submissions of the applicant Shri V.K. Sareen. In para No. 7 of the preliminary objections it has been specifically alleged by the present defendants as to their having sold the property to several other persons, though their names have not been disclosed by way of the present application, the applicant wants to implead those persons, who are the subsequent purchasers as the present suit is for possession by way of removing the Malba. The applicants are necessary parties and their impleading as defendants shall assist the court in adjudicating the subject matter of the present case effectively and completely. The proposed amendment as sought by the present applicant, shall in no manner change the nature of the suit, as it has been sought after impleading of the applicants as a party, in whose name the sale deeds have been effected, which are alleged by the present plaintiff to be illegal. The application is hereby allowed. subject to Rs. 750/- as costs." 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision. 4. I have heard Mr. Salil Sagar, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. 5. Order 1 Rule 10(2) lays down that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. 6. 6. Thus the reading of the above would show that in order to dispose of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the Court has to see whether the proposed persons to be added as plaintiffs or defendants are necessary/proper parties. The case set up by the plaintiff before the trial Court was that he was the owner of the property and the defendants have no right, title or interest in the same and they are trespassers. Therefore, decree for possession be passed in his favour by giving directions to the defendants to remove the Malba from the suit property. It was also the case set up by the plaintiff that it has come to his notice that the defendants have further transferred the property to various persons whose names have been mentioned in the application and, therefore, to completely adjudicate the controversy their presence is necessary. This aspect of the case is not being disputed by the petitioners that they have not sold the property to various persons mentioned in the application. Tomorrow if a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff, the transferee will come before the trial Court to say that since they were not a party to the suit, therefore, the decree is not binding upon them. In these circumstances, the presence of these transferees is not only proper but necessary because without their presence the matter cannot be adjudicated properly. As I have stated above that the grouse of the petitioner is that previous owners of the property have not been impleaded as party, therefore, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC deserves to be dismissed. This argument of the petitioners cannot be accepted because the plaintiff/respondent never admitted that there is any other owner of the property. The case of the plaintiff/respondent is that he is the owner of the property which has been illegally occupied by the petitioners and they are liable to restore the possession. It any person claims himself to be the rightful owner of the property, he can make an application before the trial Court that his appearance is also required for adjudication of the controversy. But so far as the presence of various persons mentioned in the application is concerned, in my opinion, the application in question has been rightly allowed by the trial Court. 7. But so far as the presence of various persons mentioned in the application is concerned, in my opinion, the application in question has been rightly allowed by the trial Court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners cites a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported as 2000(7) Supreme Court Cases 215 and submits that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC deserves dismissal. In my opinion the main relief claimed by the plaintiff is for the addition of so-called persons as defendants in this suit. Moment the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is allowed, the pleadings are bound to be amended. I also repel the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the plaint no independent relief of declaration has been sought by the plaintiff. This argument is also misconceived as the relief of possession includes the relief of declaration. 8. Consequently, the present revision stands dismissed. Nothing stated above shall amount an expression of my opinion on the merits of the suit and the trial Court is directed to expedite the suit. Revision petition dismissed.