Civil Rev. 2356 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH Civil Rev. 2356 of 2008 Date of decision: 3.8.2009 Darbara Singh Petitioner vs The Raman Schedule Caste Society and another Respondent Present Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate Mr. Sherry K Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2 M.M.S.BEDI,J. Vide order dated 20.2.2008 the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.D) Talwandi Sabo has allowed the application filed by respondent No.2 Kartar Singh under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and permitted him to be impleaded as a party as he is an active member of the Raman Schedule Castes Cooperative Land Owning Society Litd ( for short the Society) and he has got a right to protect the interest of of the society. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the Society . The Society has filed a detailed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff- petitioner stating therein that the Society has already filed a suit for possession regarding the suit property against the plaintiff- petitioner. Learned counsel has also drawn my attention to a civil suit for injunction filed by respondent No.2 Kartar Singh, which was withdrawn on 2.5.2007 pertaining to the same property in dispute. In the said suit, respondent No.2 had sought a permanent injunction against the present petitioner and Billa Singh, President of the Society restraining the petitioner Civil Rev. 2356 of 2008 2 from rasing any construction over the land in dispute. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that he being the member of the Society is entitled to safe- guard the interest of the Society as the society has colluded with the plaintiff- petitioner and admitted the possession. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the pleadings of the parties and the order passed by the trial court. A perusal of the written statement, filed by respondent No.1 Society indicates that the possession of the plaintiff- petitioner has been admitted but at the same time, a preliminary objection has been raised that the Society, being a lawful owner of the suit land is entitled to the possession of the same and that the defendant-society has already instituted a suit for possession against the petitioner, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr.D.), Talwandi Sabo. It is no where admitted in the written statement that the plaintiff- petitioner is owner by way of adverse possession as is sought to be projected by the counsel for respondent No.2. A copy of the plaint, filed by respondent No.1 Society for seeking the possession of the suit land has been brought to my notice. It is a settled principle of law that the plaintiff is 'dominus litus' of his case. He has not sought any relief against defendant- respondent No.2. The defendant- respondent No.2 has got an apprehension that the claim of adverse possession of the plaintiff-petitioner will be admitted by the Society to cause prejudice to the Society. The said apprehension seems to be misconceived as the issue of plaintiff- petitioner being owner by way of adverse possession will be a mixed question of law and fact. Merely by claiming that the plaintiff- petitioner has been in possession of the land of the Society for more than 12 years, is not sufficient enough for seeking ownership especially when the Society has specifically denied the Civil Rev. 2356 of 2008 3 ownership of the plaintiff and has specifically pleaded that he is in unauthorized and illegal possession of the suit property. Respondent No.2 seems to have a personal grievance against the petitioner and to prevent the petitioner from raising any construction, he had filed a suit, which was withdrawn by him on the ground of some technical error. By forcing himself as a defendant, he cannot be permitted to become a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as his presence is neither necessary nor any relief has been claimed against him. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.2.2008 is hereby set aside . However, it is made clear that this order will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of respondent No.2 to avail any other legal remedy, available to him in his individual capacity in accordance with law. It is further made clear that any evidence, which has been brought on the record till date will not become a nullity but can be taken into consideration by the trial court subject to the rules of evidence for the just decision of the case. August 3 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE