Civil Revision No.6902 of 2006 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6902 of 2006 Date of Decision: January 17, 2008 The Ropar Distt.Muslim Welfare & Roza Committee ...Petitioner VERSUS Chanan Shah & another ...Respondents Civil Revision No.117 of 2007 The Ropar Distt.Muslim Welfare & Roza Committee ...Petitioner VERSUS Chanan Singh & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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? Present: Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Naresh Katyal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.J.S.Bedi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** Civil Revision No.6902 of 2006 : 2 : RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two Civil Revision Nos.6902 of 2006 (The Ropar District Muslim Welfare & Roza Committee v. Chanan Shah and another) and 117 of 2007 (The Ropar District Muslim Welfare & Roza Committee v. Chanan Shah and another). The facts are being taken from Civil Revision No.6902 of 2006. The petitioner has titled itself to be Ropar Distt.Muslim Welfare & Roza Committee, Village Manakpur has filed the revision petition through Mohammad Ali @ Ronqi challenging the order dated 18.8.2006 whereby respondent No.2-Gram Panchayat Village Tarapur has been impleaded as defendant in the suit. According to the petitioner-committee, this prayer of respondent No.2 has been allowed without any rhyme or reason and accordingly it is prayed that the order be set-aside and the application, so filed by respondent No.2, be dismissed. The petitioner-committee filed a suit against one Sardar Ali seeking direction to restrain him from interfering in any manner in the administrative or financial and other affairs of Lallanwala Pir situated in abadi Niggaha at village Tarapur, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. Sardar Ali contested this suit and filed a written statement. Alongwith the suit, application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was also filed, which was opposed by the respondent and the same was dismissed on 10.1.2000. The petitioner-committee statedly filed an appeal against the same, which was allowed on 13.11.2001 and Sardar Ali was restrained from interfering in the affairs of Lallanwala Pir till the decision of the suit. Revision filed against the said order by Civil Revision No.6902 of 2006 : 3 : Sardar Ali is also stated to have been dismissed by this court and so was the fate of Special Leave Petition preferred by said Sardar Ali before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 29.5.2003. It is further disclosed in the petition that the petitioner-committee had even sought police help when Sardar Ali tried to interfere in the affairs of the Lallanwala Pir in violation of the order passed by the civil court. Sardar Ali, however, breathed his last during the pendency of the suit. One Chanan Shah, respondent No.1, filed an application for being impleaded as a party as heir of Sardar Ali, which was allowed by the court on 16.11.2006. Respondent No.2-Gram Panchayat has also filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a party. This application was opposed by the petitioner-committee. Basically it is pleaded by respondent No.2 panchayat that such properties are generally controlled by the Punjab Wakf Board and the petitioner- committee is neither the Wakf Board nor authorised or delegated any power to manage the same by the Wakf Board. The petitioner- committee seems to be taking advantage of the same to say that respondent No.2 panchayat cannot plead that the property is of Wakf Board and at the same time claim it to be recorded as abadi deh. This, according to the petitioner, would reflect a contrary stand on the part of respondent No.2. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar vide his order dated 18.8.2006 has allowed this application directing respondent No.2 for being impleaded as a party to the suit. This order is under challenge in the present revision petition. In an application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, it is necessarily required to be seen whether the party seeking Civil Revision No.6902 of 2006 : 4 : impleadment is a necessary party or a proper party for the adjudication of the matter in dispute or not. While allowing this application, the trial court has noticed that though the present suit is for permanent injunction seeking direction against the defendant from interfering in the administration and financial affairs of Lallanwala Pir, but there is other litigation pending in the courts at Kharar where the Gram Panchayat and the petitioner-committee as well as the defendant are parties. It is in this background the trial court has noticed that the Gram Panchayat can be impleaded as a party to avoid any contradictory order and this will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner-committee. The petitioner-committee is also aggrieved against the order dated 16.11.2006 whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed granting permission for amendment of the written statement after having allowed the Gram Panchayat to be impleaded as party. Here Mr.P.K.Gupta is appearing in both the revision petitions. He made submission in a highly agitated manner. Referring to the case of Banarsi Dass Durga Prashad Vs. Panna Lal Ram Richhpal Oswal and others, AIR 1969 Punjab & Haryana 57, he submits particularly as a rule the Court should not add a person as a defendant in a suit when the plaintiff is opposed to such addition. The reason in this regard, as noticed by the court in this judgment, is that plaintiff is the dominus litis and he is master of the suit. It is accordingly observed that he cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not wish to fight and against whom he does not claim any relief. In this very judgment, this court has observed that High Court can interfere in revision if it finds some Civil Revision No.6902 of 2006 : 5 : material irregularity or illegality in the order and that the person may not be added as a defendant merely on the ground that he would be incidentally affected by the judgment. The learned counsel has also referred to number of other judgments in support of his submission that the permission to amend the written statement could not have been granted as has been done by the court. In this regard, he refers to Sarwan Kumar v. Balbir Singh and others, 2007(2) Punjab Law Reporter 143, Bal Kishan Vs. State Bank of Patiala, 1995(2) Civil Court Cases 630 and Heeralal Vs. Kalyan Mal & Ors., 1998(1) Civil Court Cases 1. Order 1 Rule 10 CPC empowers the court to strike out or add a party. This can be done at any stage of the proceedings and may be either upon or without the application of either party, and can be on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just. If a party moves an application that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, he may be added as a party. Where defendant is added as a party, then plaint is also required to be amended in such manner as may be necessary. Basic requirement for impleading a party is when it is considered proper and necessary for proper adjudication of the case. Gram Panchayat-respondent No.2 has filed this application for being impleaded as a party on the ground that inhabitants of village Tarapur are owners and in possession over the disputed property from immemorial period and people were living/ Civil Revision No.6902 of 2006 : 6 : performing their religious ceremonies peacefully and without any type of interruption except the petitioner-committee. Sarpanch of a village has filed this application for impleading Gram Panchayat as a party. This, according to the panchayat, would help in solving the dispute of property Peer Lallanwala situated in Patti Nihaga of village Tarapur. The property in dispute is statedly described as “Abadi deh, Makbuza Basindgan Patti Nigaha” and as such Gram Panchayat and residents of the village are statedly owners in possession of the disputed property. A perusal of this application filed by the Gram Pancyayat would show that there was a dispute between Sardar Ali and his son Chanan Shah and his nephew. Dispute between Sardar Ali, his son Chanan Shah and his nephew Rehmatulla, which arose on account of two GPAs executed in the name of Chanan Shah and Rehmatulla. When this dispute could not be solved, then Vice President of Ropar District Muslim Welfare and Roze Committee at village Manakpur Sharif offered his services to solve the same and so he appeared on the scene. It is in this background, he now is claiming ownership of the disputed property by deliberately using the name as Muslim Welfare and Roza Committee of village Manakpur Sharif. In short, the panchayat appears to convey that this petitioner-committee has nothing to do with this property and is of village Manakpur having no concern with village Tarapur or the property etc. Gram Panchayat- respondent was not in the know of this ongoing litigation and so also the dispute and the stay orders that were passed and on learning about the same, they moved this application to protect the property of Gram Panchayat against all the contesting persons. The main limb of submission made by Mr.Gupta is that Civil Revision No.6902 of 2006 : 7 : the Gram Panchayat is taking contradictory stand and by permitting impleadment of the Gram Panchayat and allowing amendment of the written statement, the admissions that were made earlier would stand withdrawn, which, according to the counsel, cannot be permitted under law. Mr.J.S.Bedi, the learned counsel representing the respondent Gram Panchayat would, however, say that there was no admission made in earlier written statement and this aspect of the argument has just been advanced to bring the submission within the parameters of law laid down by the judgments relied upon by the counsel representing the petitioner. He would draw my attention to page 68 of Civil Revision No.117 of 2007 where para 14 of the plaint is replied by stating “that this para is legal”. If this reply is seen in the context of averment made in para 14 of the plaint, it cannot be termed as an admission which is sought to be denied in any manner. The amendment now sought is that this property in dispute is Abadi deh, Makbuza Basindgan Patti Nigaha and the Gram Panchayat and its residents are the owners in possession of the same. If it is so, the civil court will not have jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate the matter under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act. This is stated to be aimed at withdrawing the admission, which, according to the counsel had come on record as reply filed by respondents earlier where averment in regard to the jurisdiction of the civil court was made. Saying that paragraph is legal would not, in my view, amount to an admission of the contents thereof. It may need a notice that the admission is binding regarding the facts and not on a question of law. As held in Banarsi Dass Vs. Civil Revision No.6902 of 2006 : 8 : Kanshi Ram, AIR 1963 SC 1165, an admission would bind the maker only in so far as facts are concerned but not in so far as it relates to a question of law. Even otherwise, there should be no doubt or ambiguity about the alleged admission. Before right of the party can be considered to have been defeated on the basis of an alleged admission by him the implication of the statement made by him must be clear and conclusive. [See Chikkam Koteswara Rao V. Chikkam Subbarao and others, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1542.] To say that a particular paragraph of a plaint is legal, in my view, would not be an admission and even if it be so, it was not relating to any fact but to a legal position. The Gram Panchayat while seeking impleadment has clearly pleaded that the property is owned by the residents of the village and the Gram Panchayat and hence it is not possible to say that Gram Panchayat would not be necessary or proper party. Mr.Gupta lays much emphasis on the contradictory stand taken by the Gram Panchayat as averred in the revision petition. In the plaint, Gram Panchayat has simply pleaded the residents and the Gram Panchayat are owner of the property. There is no plea that it is property of the Wakf Board. In fact this part of a statement made by Mr.P.K.Gupta appears to be somewhat misleading. Even reference to the written statement filed by the panchayat is being misread by the counsel. It is no where pleaded in the written statement that this property is of a Wakf Board. While challenging the locus of the petitioner-committee to manage this property, it is mentioned in the written statement filed on behalf of the panchayat that the petitioner- committee is not legal or valid and has no locus to file the present Civil Revision No.6902 of 2006 : 9 : suit because the Punjab Wakf Board is controlling and conducting the whole property of Mohammedan Institutions. It is no where being pleaded that this property is being managed or controlled or owned by Punjab Wakf Board. It is only to challenge the locus, it is mentioned by the Gram Panchayat that such like properties are not managed by the Committees as is the petitioner-committee, but by a Wakf Board. By no stretch of imagination, this reply could be read to be contradictory to the stand of the Gram Panchayat. The stand of the panchayat in the written statement is unambiguous and that residents and panchayat are the owners of the property in question and hence this part of the statement made by the counsel deserves to be rejected. It is already noticed that there is no admission made in the earlier written statement as urged by the counsel for the petitioner, which is sought to be withdrawn through the amended written statement permitted to be placed on record. Once the panchayat was permitted to be impleaded as a party being owner of the property, the necessary consequences of permitting it to file a written statement was bound to follow. In view of this factual ground, the judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel that amendment of a written statement cannot be permitted to withdraw the admission need not be discussed any further. During the course of arguments, the question about the status of the committee also came up for consideration. The counsel when questioned as to how and under what authority the committee was claiming the property, felt agitated and could not give any meaningful reply. He simply maintained that such committees are managing Muslim property. He could not refer to any law or provision Civil Revision No.6902 of 2006 : 10 : or any document whatsoever which could empower the committee to claim the property in question. The committee seems to be having no concern. How this has escaped notice of the courts is not understood. I find no merit in both the petitions and these are accordingly dismissed. January 17, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE