Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1080 (PNJ)

Inder Singh v. Joga Singh

2009-07-06

HEMANT GUPTA

body2009
JudgmentJudgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 14.02.2006 impleading Major Singh, Amandeep Kaur, Simarandeep Singh, Resham Singh and Kuldeep Singh as defendants. 2. The present petitioners have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the petitioners or raising any construction in the property bearing Khewat and Khatauni No. 13 and 15, Khasra No. 47(2-11), 46(1-3), 1(0-6). It is alleged that the plaintiffs along with one Manmohan Singh are the owners of the suit land. Manmohan Singh has given general power of attorney in favour of Balraj Singh on 9.11.2001. Balraj Singh has sold the property vide registered sale deed in favour of the applicants Major Singh 26.07.2002 and possession delivered in respect of the shares of the land to them. The applicants sought impleadment on the ground that the plaintiffs, brothers of Manmohan Singh, have filed the present suit for injunction claiming themselves to be the owners in possession of the total property whereas they are in possession of the property falling to the share of Manmohan Singh. 3. The learned trial Court found that the applicants have purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 26.07.2002 from Balraj Singh, general power of attorney of Manmohan Singh, therefore, they having interest in the suit property, therefore, the learned trial Court allowed the application in favour of the applicants. 4. At the time of motion hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Single Bench decision of this Court reported as M/s Wimco Limited v. Horam and others, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 437: 2004(1) PLR 276 to contend that the purchaser of the property during the pendency of the suit was not a necessary party in terms of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the aforesaid case, the applicants have sought impleadment as transferee for the party to the suit. 5. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the applicants are not claiming any transfer of rights from any of the parties pending the present lis. The applicants claim to be co-owner with the plaintiffs and, thus, assert possession over a part of the suit property. The plaintiffs are claiming exclusive possession of the suit property. The applicants claim to be co-owner with the plaintiffs and, thus, assert possession over a part of the suit property. The plaintiffs are claiming exclusive possession of the suit property. Therefore, any decree in respect of possession in favour of the plaintiffs may prejudice the interest of the applicants who are co-owners and claims to be in possession being co-sharers. Thus, the applicants have rightly been found to be necessary parties for defending the suit. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.