IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5119 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.9.2009 Jagdev … Petitioner Versus Raj Kishore …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr.Y.P.Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vivek Singla, Advocate for the respondent. Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.8.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Ganaur vide which application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as party, stands dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession against Shri Ram Kumar Dhankhar son of Basti Ram in view of the earlier decree passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The suit was filed on the pleadings that Sh.Ram Kumar Jain father of the plaintiff-respodnent had challenged the sale deed executed by Mahaveer Parsad in favour of Sh. Ram Kumar, on the ground that Sh.Mahaveer Parsad had wrongly sold land in excess of his share in the joint property. Suit filed by Ram Kumar Jain was decreed, and the decree attained finality. In pursuance to the decree having been passed in favour of Sh.Ram Kumar Jain, 11 marlas of land, he sold it to the plaintiff/respondent. In order to seek possession, the present suit was filed. The petitioner herein by claiming himself to be co-sharer in possession of the property in dispute, CR No.5119 of 2008 (O&M) moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as party to the suit and by taking a plea that he was a necessary party to the suit as in his absence, the dispute raised between the parties could not be effectively adjudicated. The learned trial Court has been pleased to dismiss the application moved by the petitioner by holding that the petitioner could not be said to be a necessary or proper party to the suit as he was not party to the previous suit i.e. the suit filed by the father of the plaintiff against Sh.Ram Kumar Dhankhar. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the finding primarily on the ground that even the plaintiff was not a party to the previous suit and therefore, learned court committed an error in non-suiting the petitioner for being not a party to the previous suit. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The plaintiff/respondent had drawn title through Shri Ram Kumar Jain on the basis of sale deed executed in his favour. Therefore, he had stepped into the shoes of Ram Kumar. The Court was right while holding that the petitioner was not a party in the suit wherein predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff- respondent was the decree holder. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that finding recorded by the trial Court that a suit for possession could not be converted into declaration of title cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of this Court in case of Roshan Lal and others. Vs. Mohit and others, 2009 (3) PLR, 90, wherein this Court was pleased to hold that though the plaintiff is dominus litis but he cannot resist the impleadment of the defendant, whose 2 CR No.5119 of 2008 (O&M) interest is likely to be affected in any manner, so as to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings. However, on consideration of matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, the possession is sought on the basis of a decree, which was passed against Ram Kumar Dhankhar. The petitioner cannot have any interest in the said decree. In any case, the decree of possession against Ram Kumar Dhankhar qua his share of land cannot affect the right of the petitioner in any way being a third party to the litigation. In case petitioner has an independent right or share in the property, his right cannot be adjudicated in a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent seeking possession from defendant. The authority relied upon by the petitioner, has no application in the present case. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that finding of learned trial court, that the petitioner cannot be impleaded as a party, being stranger, cannot be sustained in view of the specific stand taken by the defendant, that the petitioner is owner in possession of the land, sought to be taken possession. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on judgment of this Court in Roshan Lal and others Vs. Mohit and others (supra). This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is also totally misconceived. It is well settled law that a party in whose absence, the matter can be effectively adjudicated, cannot be said to be necessary or a proper party. It is also well established law that the decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent against Ram Kumar Dhankhar can not be enforced against the petitioner, being a third party. He will not be bound by the decree 3 CR No.5119 of 2008 (O&M) keeping in view the fact that his application moved by the petitioner is opposed by the plaintiff-respondent. Furthermore, decree in favour of plaintiff, in case property is joint can be only for symbolic possession, and in absence of partition actual possession can not be granted. In case of suit for partition, the petitioner will have a right to contest it. For the reasons stated above, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. [ Vinod K.Sharma ] Judge 07.09.2009 sd 4