Civil Revision No.4376 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4376 of 2011 Date of Decision:21.07.2011 Ajit Singh ......Petitioner Versus Roop Chand and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Ms.Monisha Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in this revision petition and emanating from the record, is that Roop Chand and Hans Raj sons of Rang Lal- respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Sharwan Kumar and others-respondent Nos.3 to 9-defendants(for brevity “the defendants”) from interfering in their peaceful possession, cultivation and construction work of the boundary wall around the land in dispute. 2. During the pendency of the case, petitioner-Ajit Singh son of Tara Chand filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, for impleading him as a party/defendant. The plaintiffs resisted his claim, filed the reply and prayed for dismissal of the application. 3. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire material on record, dismissed the application of the petitioner, by means of impugned order dated 03.06.2011(Annexure P-1), the operative part of which is, as under:- “After pondering to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record very carefully, this Court is of Civil Revision No.4376 of 2011 2 the considered view that it is the case of the applicant that he being the co- sharer in the suit property, is entitled to be impleaded as defendant as his brother has been impleaded as defendant No.3. A perusal of the case file reveals that the instant suit has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the construction of boundary wall over the property and damaging the standing crop. The instant suit is a simple suit for injunction and has been filed against the persons who are infringing the rights of the plaintiff. The necessary party is one in whose absence lis cannot be decided and a proper party is one whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the matter properly and effectively. In this case, the applicant has not stated how and in which manner he is a necessary party nor he stated how he will assist the Court to adjudicate the matter completely and effectively.” 4. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, petitioner-Ajit Singh preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with her valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this regard. 6. What is not disputed here is that the plaintiffs have filed a simple suit for a decree of permanent injunction, apprehending interference from the defendants. As, it is not the case of the plaintiffs that petitioner-Ajit Singh also threatened them to interfere in their possession, therefore, it cannot possibly be saith that he is a necessary party, to be impleaded as a defendant. The plaintiffs are the Dominus litus of their case and they cannot possibly be forced to implead, or to prosecute a person against whom, they are not aggrieved, in any manner. 7. Learned counsel did not point out, how and in what manner, any manifest injustice has occasioned to the petitioner in this context. Therefore, to me, the trial Court has rightly dismissed his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, for impleading him as a party/defendant. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of Civil Revision No.4376 of 2011 3 this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order dated 03.06.2011(Annexure P-1) is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. July 21, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE