C.R. No.4064 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4064 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 02.07.2010 Parveen Kumar .……Petitioner Versus Ram Kumar and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.16084-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case. Parveen Kumar has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 26.03.2010 Annexure P-4 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Assandh thereby dismissing petitioner's application Annexure P-2 moved under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading the petitioner as party to the suit instituted by respondent No.1 against respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide plaint Annexure P-1. In the suit instituted by respondent No.1, he has claimed himself to be exclusive owner in possession of the suit land and has sought permanent injunction against respondent Nos.2 and 3 restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff-respondent No.1 from the suit property and from interfering in his possession thereon. The petitioner in his application Annexure P-2 alleged that C.R. No.4064 of 2010 (O & M) -2- one Krishi Ram alias Rishi Ram sold part of the suit land to Vijender Singh vide sale deed dated 03.05.1993 and to Rekha Rani wife of Vijender Singh by another sale deed. Rekha Rani sold the land purchased by her to Surinder Singh, Sham Singh and Om Singh vide sale deed dated 20.05.1994, but prior to it, Rekha Rani leased out the said land to petitioner's father Balwan Singh for 30 years from 18.04.1994 till 17.05.2024 by registered lease deed. Petitioner's father having died, the petitioner is in possession of the said land as lessee and, therefore, petitioner is necessary party to the suit. The application was opposed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 alleging inter alia that the petitioner has never been in possession of any part of the suit land as alleged by him. Lease deed in favour of petitioner's father was also denied. Learned Trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-4 dismissed the petitioner's application. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that plaintiff- respondent No.1 is claiming himself to be in possession of the suit land whereas the petitioner claims himself to be in possession of part of the suit land and, therefore, petitioner is necessary party to the suit because his rights would be adversely affected by the decree that may be passed in the suit. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 is not claiming any relief against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 is C.R. No.4064 of 2010 (O & M) -3- dominus litis. Any decree that may be passed in the suit would obviously be not binding on the petitioner, who is not party to the suit. If at any stage, any right of the petitioner is threatened, the petitioner may resort to appropriate remedy in accordance with law, but the petitioner cannot be said to be proper or necessary party to the instant pending suit in which no relief is sought to be claimed against him by plaintiff-respondent No.1. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the trial Court. The revision petition is devoid of any substance and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 02.07.2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE