C.R.No.3574 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.3574 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.5.2010 Rajbir Singh and others .....Petitioners vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Dinesh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is plaintiffs' revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 21.4.2010 whereby respondents No. 5 to 10 have been impleaded as defendants in the suit. As per the averments petitioners filed a civil suit for permanent injunction stating therein that respondents No. 1 to 4 were constructing a canal to connect Madina Minor with Mokhra Minor through the land of the petitioners without acquiring the same. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid canal was not required and, thus, a civil suit was filed restraining respondents No. 1 to 4 from constructing the canal as aforesaid. The suit was contested by respondents No.1 to 4 alleging that the New Mokhra Minor was being constructed on the demand of the villagers. Apart from this, it was denied that the land of the petitioners was required to be acquired to construct the aforesaid channel. Respondents No. 5 to 10 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for impleading them as defendants C.R.No.3574 of 2010 2 in the present suit on the ground that although their land was being irrigated from Madina Minor but to solve the problem of level of water the New Mokhra Minor was necessary to be constructed. It was further alleged that land of respondents No. 5 to 10 was to be irrigated through this minor, and as such, they were necessary party to contest the suit. Petitioners filed reply to the aforesaid application and contested the same submitting that no relief was being claimed against respondents No. 5 to 10 and therefore, they were not necessary party to be impleaded in the present case, and respondents No. 5 to 10 want to take undue benefit of illegal act of respondents No. 1 to 4. Since respondents No. 5 to 10 were not adversely affected by any order or decree passed in the present suit, they were not necessary to be impleaded. Vide impugned order, the trial Court allowed the aforesaid application for impleadment of respondents No. 5 to 10 as defendants in the suit. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the petitioners who are dominus litus of the suit and are not claiming any relief against respondents No.5 to 10, cannot be compelled to contest the suit against respondents No.5 to 10, and thus the impugned order was liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. Sub rule (2) of Order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, permits the addition of parties to the suit when in the opinion of the court such persons should have been joined either as plaintiff or as defendant, and the Court has wide discretion to implead the necessary and proper parties. In C.R.No.3574 of 2010 3 the present case, though it is alleged by the petitioners that they are not claiming any relief against respondents No. 5 to 10 yet it is not in dispute that defendants No. 1 to 4 are constructing the New Mokhra Minor in public interest with respect to improve irrigation facilities. Moreover, it is the specific case of respondents No. 5 to 10 that after the construction of the aforesaid minor they are to be benefited. Not only this, defendants/respondents No. 1 to 4 have also taken up a specific stand that no land of the petitioners is required to be acquired to construct this channel. It is well settled that exercise of powers under Order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment does not dependent upon the volition of the plaintiff, as the Court has wide powers to exercise the same. Moreover, no prejudice has been shown to be caused by impleadment of respondents No. 5 to 10 as defendants in the suit. Thus, in this view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge May 25,2010 rk