C. R. No. 2932 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2932 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 27, 2010 Raghubir Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Than Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. M. S. Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Raghubir Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 26.02.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, thereby dismissing application Annexure P-1 moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as party to the suit, which has been instituted by respondent no.1 against respondents no.2 to 4. The petitioner alleged in his application that he is necessary party to the suit as he is co-sharer in the suit property with plaintiff and C. R. No. 2932 of 2010 2 defendants and his rights would, therefore, be effected by the decision in the suit. Plaintiff opposed the application by filing reply Annexure P-2, pleading inter alia that the plaintiff does not claim any relief against the petitioner and therefore, petitioner is neither proper nor necessary party to the suit. It was also pleaded that the petitioner was aware of the suit from the very inception and was pursuing the suit on behalf of defendant no.3 from the very beginning. The suit was instituted in the year 2003, whereas application Annexure P-1 is dated 22.08.2008. Various other pleas were also raised. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, being vendee of defendant no.3, has interest in the result of the suit and is, therefore, proper and necessary party to the suit. The contention cannot be accepted. Plaintiff is dominus litis. The plaintiff does not claim any relief against the petitioner in the suit. Even if the petitioner is co-sharer in the suit land, which fact is not perhaps disputed even by the plaintiff, this fact by itself does not entitle the petitioner to become party to the suit when the plaintiff does not claim any relief against the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be said to be proper or necessary party to the suit merely on the ground of being co-sharer in the suit property. On the other hand, the C. R. No. 2932 of 2010 3 decree, if any, that may be passed in the suit, would not be binding on the petitioner because he is not party to the suit. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. July 27, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE