C.R. No. 143 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 143 of 2009 Decided on : 13-01-2009 Roshan Lal and others ....Petitioners VERSUS Mohit and others ....Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J The petitioner filed a suit for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants (now respondents) from illegally interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land as detailed in the plaint and further, from making any sort of encroachment over the same. During the pendency of this suit, respondent No.8 Gram Panchayat of Village Shezadpur moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading the Gram Panchayat as defendant in the suit being a necessary and proper party alleging that the Gram Panchayat,Village Shezadpur was actual owner of the land in dispute and having management rights over the suit property which during the consolidation was reserved for Mela Ground in the revenue record. And as per the applicant-Gram Panchyat, plaintiffs/petitioners had no right, title or interest in the suit property and entries in khasra girdawari in the name of plaintiffs were wrong, illegal and liable to be ignored. The said application was contested by the petitioners by filing reply stating therein that defendants illegally want to interfere in possession C.R. No. 143 of 2009 -2- of plaintiffs over the suit property and as per plaintiffs, there was no cause of action against the Gram Panchayat,Village Shezadpur . The Trial Court vide order dated 2.12.2008, allowed the application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by Gram Panchayat,Village Shezadpur as under:- "In view of the pleadings of the parties and the documents produced on record, it is clear that it is a suit for permanent injunction alleging that defendants are bent upon to interfere into possession of plaintiffs. However, with the documents produced and the contents of application filed by Gram Panchayat, it is clear that gram Panchayat is also alleging its possession over the suit property and as per Gram Panchayat revenue entries are illegal and wrong. Hence, in order to dispose of the matter between the parties effectively, judiciously and completely and to save multiplicity of litigation the application moved order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. is hereby allowed." By way of this petition, the plaintiffs have challenged the aforesaid order of the Trial Court impleading the Gram Panchayat as defendant in the Civil Suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that neither the Gram Panchayat was necessary nor a proper party. Furthermore, the land in question was never reserved for any common purpose and is a proprietory body land. Moreover, the petitioners are dominius litius and as such the petitioners cannot be compelled to contest the suit against a person against whom the petitioners have no claim and thus, the impugned order dated 02.12.2008 is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. I find no force in C.R. No. 143 of 2009 -3- the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners. In the present case, plaintiffs/petitioners have prayed for a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants alleging that they are in possession of the suit property. Plaintiffs/petitioners have also alleged themselves as owner of the suit property, whereas defendants in their written statement has alleged the suit property to be owned by the Gram Panchayat. Even the applicant- Gram Panchayat has stated that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property. The revenue record attached with the pleadings also reflects the entries in favour of the Gram Panchayat. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that Gram Panchayat,Village Shezadpur is not a necessary party in the civil suit. Moreover, under Order 1 Rule10 of CPC , the Court has wide power to add any party, if the Court finds it necessary for an effective determination of the matter in dispute. Moreover, the petitioners were unable to point out any prejudice being caused to them. I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. 13th January, 2009. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Monika Judge