CR No. 3625 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:- 30.8.2010 Civil Revision No. 3625 of 2007 Jasmine Asghar @ Jasmine Jackson ......petitioner vs. Smt. Raj Rani & ors ......respondents Civil Revision No. 3004 of 2007 Vipan Kumar ......petitioner vs. Smt. Raj Rani and others ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. A.K.Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harminderjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. J.S. Bhatia, Advocate for respondent No. 6. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Challenge in the revision petition No. 3625 of 2007 is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 15.9.2006 whereby an application filed by the petitioner to implead herself in the suit for injunction filed by Respondent No. 1 was dismissed. The facts in brief are that Raj Rani-respondent No. 1 filed a suit CR No. 3625 of 2007 -2- for permanent injunction seeking a restraint order against defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over premises consisting of one plot measuring 50'x90'. Defendant No. 4 is Vipan Kumar. It is the stand of Vipin Kumar in the written statement that, in fact, the property is owned by Jasmine Asghar @ Jasmine Jackson, present petitioner, and he has been appointed as care taker of the property. The suit was accompanied with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure. On such application, the learned trial Court passed an order restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit plot and from raising any obstacles or interference into the construction work. Such order was affirmed in appeal on 7.5.2007. During the pendency of the suit, the present petitioner-Jasmine Asghar @ Jasmine Jackson said to be the owner by Vipin Kumar, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for impleading herself as defendant in the suit. It is her plea that she is the owner of the suit property. Earlier, father of the petitioner was said to be the owner and in possession of the suit property and after the death of her father on 29.11.1982, the property is said to be owned and possessed by the applicant-present petitioner. Learned trial Court rejected the said application for the reason that she is stranger to the controversy and that defendant No. 4 has already taken an objection that the plaintiff is not the owner in possession of the suit property and therefore, she is not proper and necessary party. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that CR No. 3625 of 2007 -3- Vipin Kumar, in his written statement has taken a specific plea that Jasmine Asghar @ Jasmine Jackson is the owner and in possession of the suit property. The issue of possession is to be required to be examined in the suit. The legal possession is claimed by the petitioner. Therefore she is just and necessary party in the suit. Vipin Kumar as an agent or care taker of the present petitioner-Jasmine Asghar @ Jasmine Jackson cannot claim better right than the present petitioner who is claiming possession and ownership of the suit property. Since, Vipin Kumar is not claiming any independent interest in the property, therefore, the present petitioner is necessary and proper party. Therefore, she is ordered to be impleaded as defendant No. 6 in the suit. The reasoning given by learned trial Court declining the application for impleadment filed by the present petitioner suffers from patent illegality or material irregularity. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court on 15.9.2006 is set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the plaintiff has filed an affidavit of three witnesses and such witnesses are yet to be cross-examined. Keeping in view the said fact, the newly added defendant No. 6 is granted one opportunity to file the written statement and after filing of such statement, the trial Court shall frame fresh issues, if so arises and thereafter, the defendants shall cross-examine the witnesses. Revision is disposed of accordingly. CR No. 3004 of 2007 This revision petition is against the order passed by the trial Court whereby ad-interim injunction application filed by the plaintiff- CR No. 3625 of 2007 -4- respondent No. 1 was allowed. The plaintiff has filed suit for injunction asserting the possession over the suit property. It is alleged that defendant No. 4-Vipin Kumar is threatening to interfere in possession of the plaintiff without any title or interest in the suit property. Both the Courts have granted ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. I do not find any ground to interfere in the orders passed by the Courts below on an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since, the dispute is regarding the possession of the suit property and the plaintiff has been found to be prima facie in possession of the suit, it would be just and equitable that the parties maintain status quo regarding the nature and construction of the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit. The said orders do not suffer from any patent illegality or material irregularity which may warrant interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Before parting, learned counsel for the parties have pointed out that multifarious litigations other than the present suit, in respect of the same property are pending before the different Courts. Such as suits bearing No. 176 dated 14.6.2007 titled as Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association (Regd.) vs. Smt. Raj Rani and others pending before the Additional Civil Judge, Amritsar; Jasmine Asgar vs. Raj Rani pending before the Court of Ms. Manila Chug, Civil Judge (Junior Division) for 15.10.2010 CR No. 3625 of 2007 -5- Jasmine Asgar vs. Vishwa Mitter Mahajan pending for 5.11.2010 in the Court of Ms. Manila Chug, Civil Judge(Junior Division), Amritsar and Jasmine Asgar vs. M.C. Amritsar and others pending for 13.10.2010 in the Court of Sh. Vineet Kumar Narang, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar. Learned District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar is directed to entrust all the above mentioned suits apart from the present suit, to one Court so as to avoid the contradictory judgments in respect of the same property. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Amritsar on 11.10.2010 for further proceedings. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 30.8.2010 preeti