IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 20.12.2010 C.R.No.5952 of 2010 Union of India ...Petitioner Versus Kudrat Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. O.P.Hoshiarpuri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Aneja, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 31.10.2003, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for impleading the said applicant as party to the suit was dismissed. Plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed a suit for declaration that plot Nos.515-H and 516-H situated in Ferozepur Cantt. is the ownership of the Custodian and is on lease with the plaintiffs and as such is not a Public Premises, as defined in Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial Court filed against Cantonment Board, Ferozepur. During the pendency of appeal, an application was filed by the Union of India that it is a necessary party, but has not been impleaded in the suit and, therefore, it should be impleaded in the suit. The learned first Appellate Court declined such application relying upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Chief Executive Officer Vs. Surendra Kumar Vakil, 1999 (3) SCC 555, wherein it was held that the applicant C.R.No.5952 of 2010 cannot be impleaded as party to the original suit, especially in an appeal. It was also held that the plaintiffs are the dominus litus and that if the application is to be allowed, it will lead to denovo trial and that rights of the applicant are not to be affected by the judgment, as such judgment is in persona and not judgment in rem. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in terms of Sections 110 and 111 of the Cantonment Act, 1924, the Central Government has framed The Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 in relation to the ownership of the immoveable property. In terms of Rule 43 of the such Rules, any declaration in respect of the suits effective proprietary rights of the land are required to be brought up by or against the Central Government and not by or against the Board. Therefore, the suit itself as constituted by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. Therefore, the applicant was required to be impleaded as a party. It is contended that though the judgment of the Civil Court will not be binding on the Union of India, but such judgment will lead to multiplicity of proceedings, as the petitioner would have no option, but to challenge the said judgment, which process should be avoided. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court and relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Anokhe Lal Vs. Radhamohan Bansal and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 257 and Sanjay Verma Vs. Manik Roy and others, AIR 2007 SC 1332 and judgment of this Court reported as Ram Pal Vs. Akki Devi @ Savitari Devi and others 2006 (3) PLR 210. In Anokhe Lal’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Court relied upon the principle that as a dominus litus, the plaintiff has a right to choose a 2 C.R.No.5952 of 2010 party against whom, it seeks relief and that the Court should not normally allow an application which leads to denovo trial. There is no dispute with the proposition laid down in the aforesaid case. But where the necessary party in terms of statutory Rules has not been impleaded, then such suit itself is not maintainable. In fact, the decision of the said suit will lead to multiplicity of proceedings as well. Therefore, the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the present case, where the statutory Rules contemplate the frame of the suit so as to file against the Central Government. In Sanjay Verma’s case (supra), again it has been held that the judgment is not binding on a person, who is not a party to the suit. Similarly is a view in Ram Pal’s case (supra). The aforesaid judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the statutory Rules contemplate the parties in a dispute of the ownership of the property. Therefore, the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court suffers from patent illegality and irregularity and cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the same is set aside. As a consequence of impleading the present petitioner as a party to the proceedings, it shall be open to the learned first Appellate Court to seek report from the learned trial Court after permitting the petitioner to file its written statement and liberty to lead evidence or to permit the pleadings to be completed and evidence to be led by the parties before it, as it may consider appropriate. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned first Appellate Court on 24.01.2011 and further proceedings. 20.12.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3 C.R.No.5952 of 2010 4