Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 263 (PNJ)

Dalvir Singh v. Gurdarshan Singh

2000-03-02

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2000
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated 6.8.1998 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barnala, vide which the learned Judge dismissed an application filed by the applicants under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as defendants in the suit. Plaintiff Gurdarshan Singh and others had filed a suit against Ram Singh and 11 others for declaration that they are owners of half share of the suit property along with defendants No. 3 to 12 being co-owners of the property as legal representatives and heirs of the deceased Harjinder Kaur widow of Karam Singh. This suit was instituted in the year 1997. During the pendency of the suit, the applicants filed the aforesaid application averring that Harjinder Kaur alias Harjind Kaur alias Harchand Kaur had executed a will in their favour dated 24.8.1994 and she had bequeathed her entire property including the suit property in their favour. They claimed to be owners in possession of the suit land and as such prayed for being impleaded as defendants in the suit. 2. The application was contested by the defendants. Vide order dated 6.8.1998 the application was dismissed by the learned trial Court, while dismissing the application held as under :- "It is settled principle that a party to the suit must be a necessary party to adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in suit. But in the present case the respondents have challenged the judgment and decree dated 4.11.1995. The decree was suffered in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. Thus the suit can be adjudicated properly and all questions involved in the suit can be settled in the absence of the petitioners. The petitioners can file a separate suit against the defendants No. 1 and 2 by claiming themselves owners of the suit property on the basis of the will dated 24.8.1994. But in the present case, in my opinion they are not necessary parties." 3. In addition to the above reasons, the learned trial Court also noticed that after the death of Harjinder Kaur wife of Karam Singh, who died on 8.5.1997, the applicants never lodged any claim with the revenue authorities on the basis of the alleged will dated 24.8.1994. 4. The present suit is pending since 1997. In addition to the above reasons, the learned trial Court also noticed that after the death of Harjinder Kaur wife of Karam Singh, who died on 8.5.1997, the applicants never lodged any claim with the revenue authorities on the basis of the alleged will dated 24.8.1994. 4. The present suit is pending since 1997. There is no explanation, whatsoever, rendered on record as to why these applicants did not take any effective steps either in the present suit or before the revenue authorities, as noticed. That apart, the applicants have to show that they are necessary parties for determination of the controversy involved in the present suit. Except that, they claim an interest in the property on the strength of the will. Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to show as to what possible interest is likely to be prejudiced within the imitated scope of the present suit. The controversy in the present suit is a very limited one. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the case of Hoshiar Singh v. Gurnam Singh and others, 1991(2) Revenue Law Reporters 217 and Mohan Singh and others v. Angrej Kaur and others, 1997(2) 116 PLR 166 to contend that the application ought to have been allowed. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length I am of the considered view that the application has been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. Mere fact that decision of some issue may affect the applicants to some extent, by itself would not be a sufficient ground for impleadment of a party as a necessary party to the suit. Plaintiffs are dominus-litus and the Court must satisfy itself that the presence of the applicants is absolutely necessary before the court to adjudicate and decide the controversies before it finally. A party which may appear to be proper party, would not become a necessary party just because it does not wish to take recourse to an independent action which may be available to it in law and wishes to inter-mingle its rights arising out of completely independent and different document than the one which is a matter of controversy in the suit between the parties pending before a Court. It will be appropriate that the applicants take recourse to its own proceedings rather than getting impleaded as a party to the present suit, which already has considerably advanced in last more than three years. 6. Resultantly, the Civil revision is dismissed without any order as to costs. Revision dismissed.