Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 781 (PNJ)

Ashok Kumar v. Bhupinder Kumar

2000-07-21

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a Civil Revision and has been directed against he impugned order dated 24.2.1998, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, who dismissed the application of the present petitioners Shri Ashok Kumar and Alok Kumar, who are the sons of Shri Hind Paul Aggarwal. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. Shri Bhupinder Kumar, respondent No. 1, filed a suit for declaration and injunction against Shri Rajiv Kumar and Rajan Kumar, respondent No. 2 and 3, respectively. The declaration has been sought that on the basis of the partnership, Bhupinder Kumar, is the sole proprietor of the firm M/s Hind Murti Investments. Ashok Kumar and Alok Kumar who are the real brothers of respondent No. 1, Shri Bhupinder Kumar and sons of Shri Hind Paul Aggarwal, alleged that on the basis of the Will, they are also the legal heirs of Shri Hind Paul Aggarwal. They made an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. before the Court for impleading them as a party and their application has been declined for the reasons given in para No. 6 of the impugned order dated 24.2.1998. Hence the present revision. 3. I have heard Shri N.C. Sahni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and after going through the record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are the necessary parties to the suit as respondent No. 1 is claiming the sole proprietor of the Firm. The petitioners are alleging that they are also the legal heirs on the basis of the Will. Therefore, the application ought to have been allowed by the trial Court because the presence of the present petitioners is necessary for the adjudication of the case. 4. Faced with this difficulty, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 Shri Bhupinder Kumar, submitted that if the petitioners have any Will in their favour, they can file a separate suit under the Will. Respondent No. 1 Shri Bhupinder Kumar is the sole master of his cause of action and he has not made any prayer against Ashok Kumar and Alok Kumar, the present petitioners. 5. I do not subscribe with the argument raised by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 Shri Bhupinder Kumar is the sole master of his cause of action and he has not made any prayer against Ashok Kumar and Alok Kumar, the present petitioners. 5. I do not subscribe with the argument raised by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1. It is true that the plaintiff is the master of his cause of action but in the present case I have come to this conclusion that for the proper adjudication of the case, the presence of the present petitioners is also necessary before the trial Court. 6. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 24.2.1998, is hereby set aside and the present revision is hereby allowed and directions are given to the trial Court to allow the petitioners to become as defendant No. 3 and 4. The plaintiff shall file the amended plaint incorporating the petitioners, as defendant No. 3 and 4. The defendant No. 3 and 4 shall file the written statement as will be ordered by the trial Court. It will always be open to respondent No. 1 to file a rejoinder to the written statement. Thereafter, the case will proceed according to law. Directions are also given to the trial Court to expedite the trial. 7. The parties through their (counsel) shall appear before the trial Court on 11.8.2000. Revision allowed.