IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4859 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 12th August, 2011 Sanjiv Kumar … Petitioner Versus Ishwar Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed to assail the order dated 13th June, 2011 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gidderbaha, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for being impleaded as a party to the suit. Sohan Singh succeeded to the estate of Ajmer Kaur, who had made a Will in his favour. Later-on, this property was sold by Sohan Singh to Ishwar Singh. Sohan Singh filed a suit for possession by way of redemption against parents of the present petitioner. In the suit, a plea was raised by parents of the petitioner that the suit property was under tenancy of petitioner-applicant Sanjiv Kumar. A specific issue, being issue No.1 was framed in the suit. The same reads as under: “1. Whether the shop in dispute was already in possession of Sanjeev Kumar son of defendant as tenant who was mortgagee? OPD.” The petitioner appeared in the witness box as DW-2. In a well contested suit, the story set out that the petitioner is a tenant, was Civil Revision No.4859 of 2011 (O&M) disbelieved. This finding was not disturbed by the lower appellate Court and by this Court in RSA No.2553 of 1998 decided on 28th March, 2008. A copy of the judgment rendered in RSA No. 2553 of 1998 is annexed with this revision petition at Annexure P-4. Mr.Sidhu states that on the basis of the order passed in RSA No. 2553 of 1998, the plaintiff has filed a petition for passing of a final decree. Counsel further states that being a tenant, the petitioner is a necessary party to the suit and therefore, his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC ought to have been allowed by the Court below. The Court below has declined the prayer made by the petitioner-applicant on the ground that it has already been determined in the litigation that petitioner is not a tenant and therefore, the version projected by the petitioner-applicant as a witness was discarded. Therefore, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC cannot be allowed and at this stage the petitioner-applicant cannot be permitted to join the proceedings. Mr.Sidhu has relied upon ‘Punjab Singh @ Punjaba v. Shyam and others’ 1992(2) Recent Revenue Reports 324 to contend that any decree passed to which a person is not a party, is not binding upon him. This Court need not to adjudicate upon this submission as it is for the plaintiff to choose as to whom he has to implead as a party, as he is the master of his litigation. The effect of non-impleadment of the necessary party shall be determined at an appropriate stage. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 12, 2011 rps 2