Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2754 (PNJ)

Sunehri Devi v. Harmesh Kumar

2006-07-14

P.S.PATWALIA

body2006
Judgment P. S. PATWALIA, J. 1. No one appears for the respondents in spite of service. When the matter was taken up on the last date (13th January, 2005) also none had appeared. 2. The present revision petition arises out of an order dated 6/12/2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Samana vide which the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioners was dismissed. 3. The facts are that earlier one Ajmer Singh and Tidda Ram had filed a suit against Jagrup Ram and Sita Ram for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering or putting any kind of obstruction in the passage marked as abcdef in the plaint. The suit was decreed and the first appeal as well as the regular second appeal filed by Jagrup Ram and Sita Ram were dismissed. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that now harmesh Kumar and Wazir Chand sons of Sita Ram have filed the present suit against the Gram Panchayat for a permanent injunction restraining the Gram panchayat from interfering over the residential house of the plaintiffs. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the area which is the subject matter of this suit is the same passage in respect of which the earlier suit filed by Ajmer Singh and Tidda Ram was decreed. The present application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the legal representatives of Tidda Ram who wish to be impleaded as respondents to present before the Court the correct factual position. It is also the apprehension of the counsel for the petitioners that probably the Gram Panchayat may be colluding with the respondents in the present suit as the Gram Panchayat did not appear before the trial Court despite service and have therefore been proceeded against ex parte. 5. A reading of the order would show that one of the factors which weighed with the trial Court in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners was that Regular Second Appeal No.4965 of 2003 filed in the earlier suit was pending in this Court. However, the correct position is that the aforesaid regular second appeal was dismissed on 22/11/2004. 6. A reading of the order would show that one of the factors which weighed with the trial Court in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners was that Regular Second Appeal No.4965 of 2003 filed in the earlier suit was pending in this Court. However, the correct position is that the aforesaid regular second appeal was dismissed on 22/11/2004. 6. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that in view of the facts as stated aforesaid, the present petitioners are proper and necessary parties and their presence is essential to bring before the Court the correct factual position regarding the status of the site as to whether it is a passage or not. I am therefore of the opinion that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioners is allowed. The revision petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.