Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 775 (PNJ)

Ramesh Kumar v. Naresh Kumar

2001-07-27

JASBIR SINGH

body2001
JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. - The present Civil Revision has been filed by Ramesh Kumar and others against the order passed by Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak dated 17th August, 1983, vide which their application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading them as defendants in the suit filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are the owners in possession of the property which is shown as ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint. Relief of injunction against the Municipal Committee from interfering in their property was also claimed in the said suit. In the plaint, it was stated that they have purchased plot No. 5 which is a part and parcel of Khasra No. 10114, 8958/2967 as per the revenue records. It has further been stated that when they moved application for sanctioning of the building plans, it was returned with the objection that on the north there exists 50 feet wide street and no 30 feet as has been shown in the building plan. Objection was removed. Under compulsion the amended building plan was submitted and ultimately the same was approved. It was further stated that they have raised a wall on their own land and have not made any encroachment, but the respondent Municipal Committee, Rohtak was unnecessarily issuing them notices and is now threatening to demolish the wall raised by them in their own property. 2. In the said suit, Municipal Committee, Rohtak through its Executive Officer, has been impleaded as respondent. The Municipal Committee controverted all the allegations of the plaintiff/respondents No. 1 and 2 by filing a written statement. During the pendency of the suit, application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was moved by Ram Singh Sharma and Sita Ram with the prayer that since they are the necessary parties, they may be ordered to be impleaded as such in the pending suit. The said application has been declined by the court below, by opining that since the plaintiffs have not sought any relief against the applicants/petitioners, the Municipal Committee is vigorously contesting the suit and, as such, there is no necessity to implead the applicants/petitioners as defendants in the said litigation. This order passed by the Court below is under challenge. 3. The said application has been declined by the court below, by opining that since the plaintiffs have not sought any relief against the applicants/petitioners, the Municipal Committee is vigorously contesting the suit and, as such, there is no necessity to implead the applicants/petitioners as defendants in the said litigation. This order passed by the Court below is under challenge. 3. The counsel for the petitioners has contended that the dispute pertains to the encroachment on street by the respondents No. 1 and 2 and the officials of the Municipal Committee are openly conniving with them. So, under these circumstances, it is feared that the Municipal Committee will not put up a proper defence and will not contest the suit in a proper manner and if ultimately the suit is decided in favour of the plaintiffs, it is the petitioners who will be the real sufferers, since they are using the said street and are residing in the vicinity nearby. It was also stated that they are the necessary parties to the litigation. 4. As against this, counsel for the respondents has contended that the plaintiff is a master of his own suit and he cannot be compelled to litigate against other persons, especially, when he is not claiming any relief against the petitioners. It has further been contended that applicants/petitioners have already filed a Civil Suit titled as Ram Singh and another v. Municipal Committee, Rohtak etc., in which the general public has been impleaded as a defendant and in the said suit, the subject matter relates to the same road and encroachment as is involved in the present litigation. 5. The contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners do not seem to be correct because in the present suit, no relief is being claimed against them. The litigation is with the Municipal Committee and the Committee is contesting the said suit and nothing has been brought on record to strengthen the apprehension of the petitioners that the officials of the committee will connive with the respondent/plaintiff which will affect the result of the present litigation. The officials are supposed to defend the case and from the facts of the case it is apparent that they are doing so, that is why the respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs were compelled to file the present suit. 6. The officials are supposed to defend the case and from the facts of the case it is apparent that they are doing so, that is why the respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs were compelled to file the present suit. 6. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court titled as Bayer (India) Limited and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, JT 1991(1) SC 429. The facts of the said judgment are not applicable so far as the present litigation is concerned, especially, when the petitioners/applicants had already filed a Civil Suit regarding the subject matter which is involved in the present litigation. This fact has been admitted by the counsel for both the parties. The decision in the present litigation will not be binding upon the petitioners/applicants. Since they are pursuing their independent remedy, it is not necessary to implead them in the present case. The plaintiff who is the dominus litus of the proceedings, cannot be compelled to contest against a party against whom he does not wish to contest. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show as to how the presence of the applicants is necessary before the Court for proper determination of the pending litigation. The said view has been supported by this Honble Court in the judgment titled as Harwant Singh v. Smt. Guro and others, 1999(2) PLJ 297. 7. It has further been contended by the counsel for the respondents that while admitting the present revision petition, this Court only stayed the passing of the final order and the proceedings were not stayed and if at this stage, the petitioners/appellants are allowed to be a party in the pending suit, it will virtually amount to a de-novo trial. The contention raised by the counsel for the respondents seems to be correct. When this revision petition was admitted on 18.5.1994, only the passing of the final order was stayed and during this period of more than 7 years, substantial progress may have been done in the pending litigation. So, it will not be in the interest of justice to order the impleading of the petitioners as a party in the pending suit at this stage. 8. So, it will not be in the interest of justice to order the impleading of the petitioners as a party in the pending suit at this stage. 8. In view of the facts stated above, the Court is unable to see any error of jurisdiction in the impugned order and no justification is made out to interfere in the same. As such, this revision petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The interim order dated 10.5.1994 stands vacated and the trial Court below will proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.