Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 586 (PNJ)

Dharam Singh v. Pritam Singh

2001-05-23

R.L.ANAND

body2001
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a Civil Revision and has been directed against the order dated 7.3.2001 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kurukshetra, who, dismissed the application of the present petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. S/Shri Pritam Singh, Lachhman Singh and Mohan Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Gram Panchayat Kaulapur, Tehsil and District Kurukshetra and they prayed that a decree for permanent injunction be passed in their favour and the Gram Panchayat may be restrained from dispossessing them from the land detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint, forcibly and illegally. 3. The suit has been contested by the Gram Panchayat. In the written statement dated 11.9.2000, in para No. 6 of the preliminary objection, the Gram Panchayat has taken the plea as follows :- That the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from this Honble Court and hence the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the true facts are that Gram Panchayat Kaulapur allotted the land pertaining to Khasra No. 10/2/21 vide resolution dated 11.8.1975 to the landless persons who are inhabitants of the village and the said allottees have constructed their houses on the land so allotted to them. This land of Gram Panchayat is situated on the Eastern side of Barara- Kurukshetra road and towards the Western side of this road, there is no land of the Gram Panchayat and Gram Panchayat has never leased out any land towards Western side of the said road as per record of Gram Panchayat." 4. In Para No. 1 of the written statement, on merits, the stand of the Gram Panchayat is as follows :- "That para No. 1 of the plaint is not disputed to the extent of that the plaintiffs are in possession of the land in suit since the time of consolidation and they are cultivating the land since their forefathers, but rest of the para is wrong and hence denied. Actually the land of the Gram Panchayat is towards Eastern side of the Barara-Kurukshetra road and on this khasra number residential plots been allotted by the panchayat and the panchayat never leased out this khasra No. 10/2/2 of khasra No. 10/1/2. Actually the land of the Gram Panchayat is towards Eastern side of the Barara-Kurukshetra road and on this khasra number residential plots been allotted by the panchayat and the panchayat never leased out this khasra No. 10/2/2 of khasra No. 10/1/2. Finally, the Gram Panchayat made a prayer before the Court that the suit of plaintiffs aforesaid be dismissed. 5. During the pendency of the suit the present petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C, inter alia pleading that the proprietors of the village were owners of the land and out of the share of the proprietors, some land was deducted and was carved out as Shamilat land which was lateron carved out as Gaucharand. The applicants are the successors of those proprietors of village Kaulapur and as such as the applicants are the owners of the land which was lateron vested in the Gram Panchayat. So the suit land is owned by the applicants. The plaintiffs have filed the suit against the Gram Panchayat in collusion with the Sarpanch and plaintiffs were never in possession nor owner of any land in question but are adamant to get the land transferred in their name. Therefore, it is necessary that the petitioners may be added in the present suit as necessary party. 6. Notice of the application was given to the respondents and it was specifically averred by the respondents that the applicants are neither the owners of the property nor they are the proprietors of the village. Earlier the present petitioners filed Civil Suit No. 176 of 2000 but that suit was dismissed on 16.11.2000. There is no collusion between the parties. Earlier the lower Court granted a stay in favour of the plaintiffs. The Gram Panchayat filed an appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge and the appeal of the Gram Panchayat was accepted by the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra and against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, the plaintiff had filed a revision before the Honble High Court. The parties addressed arguments before the trial Court and for the reasons given in para No. 7 of the impugned order the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was dismissed. Not satisfied with the impugned order, the present revision has been filed. 7. The parties addressed arguments before the trial Court and for the reasons given in para No. 7 of the impugned order the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was dismissed. Not satisfied with the impugned order, the present revision has been filed. 7. I have heard Shri Sumeet Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and with his assistance have gone through the record of the case. 8. Before I deal with the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it will be appropriate for me to reproduce para No. 7 of the impugned order dated 7.3.2001 which is as under :- "Between the parties as per the documents placed upon the file, this Court is of the view that collusion between the plaintiff and the defendants has nowhere been proved by the present applicants. Also the plaintiff is the master of the suit and he cannot be compelled to join any unwanted person in the suit. Also present applicants filed a civil suit No.176/2000 in this very court alleging themselves to be the proprietors of the village and owners of the suit property but the suit was dismissed on 16.11.2000. Therefore, no collusion is proved between the parties as is clear that the lower Court confirmed the stay of the plaintiffs and the Gram Panchayat filed an appeal against the said order. Therefore, no collusion is proved between the parties as is clear that the lower Court confirmed the stay of the plaintiffs and the Gram Panchayat filed an appeal against the said order. Therefore, application for impleading as party cannot be allowed, since no relief is sought against the present applicant". 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that there is a collusion between the plaintiffs and the Gram Panchayat. Earlier the petitioners filed a Civil Suit. In that suit, the Gram Panchayat through its Sarpanch made a statement to the effect that Gram Panchayat is the owner and in possession of the suit property and it will not transfer the same to anybody nor it was so competent to do so and in view of the statement made by the Gram panchayat through its Member Panchayat, the plaintiff-petitioners withdrew the suit on 16.11.2000. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners are the proprietors of the village, therefore, they are interested to protect the land in question and, therefore, they are necessary/proper party. The earlier suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.11.2000 in a peculiar circumstance and now the Gram Panchayat colluded with the plaintiffs and, therefore, the chance should be given to the petitioners to become a party to the suit. 10. I have considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and in my view these are devoid of any merit. The specific case put up by the petitioners before the trial Court in the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was that the property in question earlier belonged to the proprietors of the village. These proprietors had died and the petitioners are the legal heirs of the proprietors. Prima facie there is nothing on record to show that the land in dispute belongs to the proprietors. In the absence of any right, title or interest shown by the petitioners at this juncture, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. cannot be allowed as the plaintiff is the master of his cause of action. Earlier, this very stand was taken by the petitioners in the civil suit which was dismissed as withdrawn. No permission was granted to the petitioners to file the separate suit. It appears that under the garb of the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. the petitioners want to make the same prayer which has already been declined vide order dated 16.11.2000. 11. With regard to the collusion aspect of the case I have already reproduced above the material averments of the pleadings between the plaintiff and the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat has taken a specific stand with regard to its ownership and how that land has been allotted to the landless owners. If the Gram Panchayat has no dispute with the plaintiffs with regard to separate piece of land which never vested in the Gram Panchayat, the Gram Panchayat can always take a correct stand. The bona fides of the Panchayat is quite discernible from the facts that it filed the appeal under Order 43 C.P.C. before the Court of Additional District Judge and that appeal was allowed against the order of the trial Court. The bona fides of the Panchayat is quite discernible from the facts that it filed the appeal under Order 43 C.P.C. before the Court of Additional District Judge and that appeal was allowed against the order of the trial Court. In these circumstances, I am not in a position to conclude that there is prima facie a collusion between the plaintiffs and the Gram Panchayat. There is no merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. Revision dismissed.