C.R. No. 4958 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4958 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.08.2010 Kiru Ram .......... Petitioner Versus Om & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Surya Parkash, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 19.5.2010, passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Narwana, District Jind, vide which application moved by the respondent Smt. Ompati, Under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for being impleaded as party, being the first wife of the plaintiff Kiru Ram stands allowed. Plaintiff Kiru Ram filed a suit for possession, against the defendants claiming to be the owner of the property in dispute. The applicant / respondent No.4 moved an application for being impleaded as a party, by claiming to be in possession of two rooms and a kitchen under a family settlement. As the applicant claimed to be in possession of part of the suit property, the learned trial Court held that she was necessary party, to the suit and allowed C.R. No. 4958 of 2010 -2- the application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order by contending that the plaintiff was master of his case, therefore, the plaintiff could not be forced to fight against a person, against whom no relief was claimed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Smt. Ompati is not in possession of the property as alternative accommodation was provided to her. On consideration, I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the plaintiff / petitioner disputes the possession of the applicant / respondent No.4, who claims to be in possession of the suit property, under a family settlement, she was certainly necessary party to the suit. It will be for Smt. Ompati to prove her case, and no prejudice is likely to be caused to the plaintiff / petitioner, as the matter would be finally adjudicated. No merit. Dismissed. 09.08.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE