Civil Revision No. 590 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 590 of 2007 Date of decision: 18.05.2009. Hoshiar Singh and others Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. H.S.Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents No. l to 4. Mr. V.Taneja. Advocate ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The plaintiffs-petitioners are in revision against the order dated 16.11.2006 vide which the learned Trial Court, while allowing a plea under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. in favour of respondents (Sikander Singh, Updesh Singh, Lachman Singh, Kuldip Singh and La Singh), allowed their impleadment as a party. The learned Trial Court made the following observations in the context:- “From the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and from the perusal of file, I find that the applicants are alleging that they are owners in possession of the suit property and they are necessary party. The Civil Revision No. 590 of 2007 -2- **** only contentions raised by the counsel for the plaintiff is that if the 3rd party is claiming ownership and possession over the suit property, that party is not necessary and proper party in injunction suit. It has been admitted by the counsel for the plaintiff that the present suit is declaratory as well as injunction suit. Before this, this suit was for only permanent injunction restraining the revenue officials not changing the khasra numbers of the property but they have changed the same during the proceedings of this case, thereafter, on application of plaintiff, amendment was made and the suit was converted into declaratory suit. So, when the plaintiff himself has admitted that the present suit is declaratory suit, the present citation Kalavathi Reathankar State Vs. Ambujamma (supra) is not applicable to the facts of present application because that citation was delivered in injunction suit. Now, the issue of ownership will not be decided at this stage and it will be decided after the evidence and after framing of issues but at this stage, I am of the view that the applicants are necessary and proper party in this case. Hence, application of applicants for impleading them as necessary party is allowed and as such, they are impleaded as defendants.” The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs- petitioners, argued that a party filing a cause cannot be compelled to Civil Revision No. 590 of 2007 -3- **** fight against a party which had not been impleaded on either side. The plea raised is completely devoid of merit. It would be apparent from a perusal of the material obtaining on the file that the contesting respondents had obtained title to the land in suit from Kuldip Kaur, who was daughter of the original owner Parshotam Singh. There is also material on the file to prove that Kuldip Kaur aforementioned obtained possession of that land in execution proceedings which stand detailed in the respective pleadings of the parties. She was, thus, prima-facie, competent to deliver the possession of the land which she had sold in favour of Sikander Singh, Updesh Singh, Lachman Singh, Kuldip Singh and La Singh. It is apparent from the record that the plaintiffs-petitioenrs filed the present suit against the defendants ( Punjab State through its Collector, The Tehsildar, Ludhiana and Halqa Patwari, villlage Ayali Kalan, village Bains, Tehsil and District Ludhiana) for restraining them “from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs”. They also applied for a “declaration to the effect that the entries in Column No.11 for the Godawari vide Hari Rapat No.287 and 337 are illegal, null, void and have no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs and for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are in continuous peaceful cultivating possession in the land”. The plaintiffs-petitioners are also applied for the grant of decree “restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property, illegally, forcibly and without due course of law on the basis of oral and documentary evidence.” Civil Revision No. 590 of 2007 -4- **** It is, thus, apparent that the plaintiffs-petitioners did not implead the contesting respondents as a party. Prima-facie, the claim of relief under the above indicated items of relief against the official respondents could not be termed to be a holy endeavour. By the very nature of things, a controversy about proprietary and possessory title of immovable property would be as between the individual parties. The plaintiffs-petitioners, in a prima-facie wily manner, did not opt to implead the contesting respondents as parties which they ought to have done in the present case. This Court held in Satnam Singh Vs. Devinder Kaur 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 639 that a person who claims to be owner and already in possession of the property under reference cannot be described to be a non necessary party. It was observed that “he is the most affected person and necessary party.” In the light of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order cannot be faulted with on any valid score. The petition is held to be devoid of force and is ordered to be dismissed. May 18, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge