C.R. No.737 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.737 of 2010 Date of Decision: 02.12.2010 Ved Parkash .....Petitioner Versus Bhim Singh and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. M. S. Uppal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.1. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiff-Ved Parkash has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 11.12.2009 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal thereby allowing application moved by respondent No.2-Randhir Singh for being impleaded as party to the suit instituted by the petitioner against respondent No.1-Bhim Singh as sole defendant. There is already litigation between respondent Nos.1 and 2 inter se regarding the suit land. Regular second appeals are pending in the said litigation in this Court. During pendency of the second appeals filed in the year 2008, respondent No.1 executed release deed dated 21.04.2009 in favour of his brother i.e Ved Parkash petitioner-plaintiff. On the basis thereof, petitioner filed suit against respondent No.1 only. Respondent No.2 alleged in his application that under the garb of injunction order obtained by C.R. No.737 of 2010 -2- petitioner against respondent No.1, who are in collusion with each other, petitioner wants to take possession of the suit property from respondent No.2 with police help. It was also alleged by respondent No.2 that rights of respondent Nos.1 and 2 are to be decided in the previous litigation and transfer in favour of petitioner by respondent No.1 is hit by lis pendens. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is seeking relief against respondent No.1-defendant only and, therefore, respondent No.2 is not necessary or proper party to the suit. The contention has been countered by counsel for respondent No.2 alleging that in view of previous litigation, respondent No.2 is necessary party to the instant suit because petitioner is claiming through respondent No.1 on the basis of release deed executed during pendency of second appeals. It is contended that by way of instant suit, petitioner and respondent No.1, who are real brothers, want to defeat the rights of respondent No.2. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Respondent No.1 has executed release deed in favour of the petitioner, who is real brother of respondent No.1, during pendency of the second appeals in which respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 are rival parties. It is thus manifest that the impugned release deed on the basis of which petitioner has filed suit against respondent No.1 has materially adverse interest against the rights of respondent No.2, who is, therefore, necessary party to the suit. C.R. No.737 of 2010 -3- Rights of respondent No.2 cannot be allowed to be defeated by collusion between petitioner and respondent No.1, who are real brothers. Respondent No.1 has executed the release deed in favour of the petitioner during pendency of the aforesaid second appeal. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial Court because respondent No.2 is necessary party to the instant suit. The revision petition is thus devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 02.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE