C.R.No.49 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.49 of 2009. Decided on August 19, 2009. Sonia .. Petitioner VERSUS Sukhbir etc. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.S.S.Godara, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Parven Bhagu, Advocate, for respondent No.2. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is the wife of respondent No.1, Sukhbir. Vide impugned order, an application filed by the petitioner under order 1 Rule 10 CPC, in a suit filed by her husband- respondent No.1, against his brother respondent No.2 (as defendant), for permanent injunction, claiming that on the basis of a family compromise, the property which is the subject matter of the case has been given to her, as such, she has got an interest in the property and deserves to be impleaded as party. . . . 1 C.R.No.49 of 2009 The trial Court vide order dated 04.12.2008, had dismissed this application and therein, after considering the settlement/compromise on the basis of which the petitioner claims to be impleaded as a party, held that as the suit is only for injunction and not for declaration, no relief having been claimed against the petitioner, she cannot be impleaded as a party to the case. However, a liberty has been granted to claim any legal remedy available to him for enforcement of her rights. I have heard counsel for the petitioner who has stated that the petitioner has been deserted by plaintiff and that he has entered into a second marriage with Dalwinder Kaur and proceedings under Section 494 IPC, have been initiated against him. Her husband, respondent No.1, has been restrained from alienating the suit property in any manner by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Jagadhari and the property is in possession of the petitioner-applicant. Counsel for respondent No.1, has contended that all the averments in the petition are wrong. The petitioner does not have any right in the property. Moreover, the suit of the plaintiff- respondent No.1, is not for establishment of any title but it is merely a suit for injunction on the basis of possession against the real brother. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings of the parties and the impugned order this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner-plaintiff has got . . . 2 C.R.No.49 of 2009 independent remedy against respondent No.1 or respondent No.2 in case any cloud is cast on her civil rights but since in a suit for injunction, the husband of the petitioner has claimed possession over the property in dispute and he seeks to restrain the defendant- respondent from interfering in his possession. The applicant cannot set up her own case against the plaintiff or defendants. The plaintiff in a case is dominus litus of his case when he does not want any relief against a particular party and the said party unnecessarily intrudes to become a party. A Court exercising power under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, taking into consideration all the circumstances, has to decide whether the impleadment of said party is necessary. The trial Court exercising the said discretion has observed that the petitioner is neither a necessary party nor it is a proper party. Besides this no relief has been claimed against her. In case he feels that any of her civil rights are infringed, it will, always, be open to her to avail any independent remedy. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in another case for possession and partition filed by her husband against respondent No.2, she has been permitted to be impleaded as a party on the basis of the same settlement which has been sought to be produced in this case. The order of another Civil Court permitting the petitioner to be impleaded as a party in case of possession and partition, cannot be considered as a precedent to enable the petitioner to be impleaded as a party as each case has to be . . . 3 C.R.No.49 of 2009 considered on its individual merits. Since, the petitioner was considered to be an appropriate party in a suit for partition on the basis of the circumstances existed in the said case which cannot be taken as a precedent. The petition is dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 19, 2009. rka . . . 4