IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 341 of 2008. Date of Decision: 29th April, 2008. Dev Raj ....Petitioner through Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate. Versus Mohan Kumar & Anr. ...Respondents through Mr. G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate, for respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18th December,2007 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha whereby the petitioner's application for his impleadment as a defendant in the suit filed by respondent No.1, has been dismissed. Notice of motion was issued and as per the office report, respondent No. 1 was duly served, however, no one appears on his behalf. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2 – Municipal Council, Nabha and have also perused the material on record. The first respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Council, Nabha from causing any type of damage to the front portion of his house. He has also sought a decree for mandatory injunction to direct the Municipal Council to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the red portion shown in the site plan as per the notification and instructions of the State of Punjab. The petitioner who is a resident of the same street, moved an application for his impleadment as a defendant in the aforementioned civil suit. His application appears to have been founded upon the allegation that in respect of the same red portion as shown in the site plan, the father of respondent No. 1 – the plaintiff (Nihal Chand) had previously filed a civil suit which he finally lost in this Court in RSA No. 2983 of 1999 decided on 10.1.2000 titled as Nihal Chand v Municipal Council, Nabha. The said judgment is stated to have attained finality. In sum and substance, the claim of the applicant- petitioner is that the red portion in question is in fact a part of the public street which has been encroached upon by respondent No. 1 – plaintiff and/or his father. It is further his case that since the father of the plaintiff has already lost civil suit qua the said portion, the present suit is barred by the principle of res-judicata. Since the applicant-petitioner claims that the said portion is a part of the public street, it is obvious that he claims himself to be a proper, if not a necessary party to the civil suit being resident of the same street. The petitioner's application, however, has been dismissed by the civil Court giving rise to this revision petition. It is true that in the light of the doctrine of dominus-litus, no one can be thrust upon the plaintiff to whom he does not want to implead as a party to the suit. It is, however, equally well settled that in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and also to arrive at a just conclusion, all the necessary and proper parties should be joined. If there is a grain of truth in the assertion made by the petitioner that red portion is a part of the public street in respect of which the father of the plaintiff has already lost his suit, it appears that the residents of the street have a direct interest in the suit and in case the same is decreed behind their back, they are likely to be affected. The applicant-petitioner, if not necessary, is undoubtedly a proper party. Consequently, and for the reasons aforementioned, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 18th December, 2007 is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. is allowed. He is ordered to be impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the array of defendants. Let written statement, if any, be filed by him. Disposed of. April 29, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE