IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.6153/2008 Date of Decision:5.3.2009. Sukhi ..........Petitioner. Versus Jagtar Singh and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. V.G.Dogra,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J Petitioner, aggrieved against the order dated 19.9.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)Kapurthala, dismissing her application under order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Briefly stated the facts leading to the present revision petition are that the case set up by the applicant-petitioner in her application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was that respondents 5 and 6- Gursharan Singh and Jaspal Singh sons of Sohan Singh, through their General Attorney-their father Sohan Singh filed a suit for declaration against respondents 1 to 4-Jagtar Singh and his family members; to the effect that they were owners of house comprising of three rooms, one veranda constructed on an area measuring 7 marlas, described in the head note of the plaint. It was case of the applicant-petitioner that plaintiffs-respondents 5 and 6 had purchased the said land from Chanan Singh and Kartar Singh and mutation was CR NO.6153/2008 2 also sanctioned in their favour. It was further alleged that at the time of the said sale deed plaintiffs were minor and their father-Sohan Singh used the said house for tethering the cattle and storing turi (fodder) etc. It was then alleged that the plaintiffs went abroad where they are presently settled. It was alleged that one Jagtar Singh-defendant no.1, in their absence illegally occupied the suit property and started running business from there. According to the applicant-petitioner, Sohan Singh- General Attorney of plaintiffs Gursharan Singh and Jaspal Singh- sold the plot and building in question to one Balwinder Singh son of Gurdeep Singh for a sale consideration of Rs.2.50 lacs and the possession of the suit property was handed over by Jagtar Singh to aforesaid Balwinder Singh. It is also alleged that thereafter the applicant purchased the suit property from said Balwinder Singh on 26.2.2007 for a sale consideration of Rs.1.59 lacs and as such she was a necessary party for the proper adjudication of the case. The plaintiffs did not oppose the said application moved by the applicant-petitioner. In the reply filed by the defendants all the averments contained in the application were denied and it was stated that the applicant was not a necessary party. The learned trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the said application. Hence the present revision petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order and the same is liable to be dismissed. CR NO.6153/2008 3 The learned trial Court, on the basis of material on record found that the suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs were owners of the suit property was filed on 30.11.2004. Balwinder Singh, from whom the applicant is stated to have purchased the suit property in the year 2007, allegedly became owner of the suit property in the year 2006 on the basis of alleged sale deed executed by Sohan Singh General Attorney of plaintiffs. The possession is said to have been delivered by defendant Jagtar Singh (being relative of plaintiffs) to said Balwinder Singh. It has nowhere been mentioned either by the plaintiffs or by the applicant as to in what capacity Jagtar Singh delivered the possession of the suit property to said Balwinder Singh. The learned trial Court also found that Jagtar Singh, his sons and wife have already been impleaded as party to the suit. No doubt, the counsel for the plaintiffs made a statement in Court on 28.2.2008 that he did not want to file any reply to the application moved by the applicant and that he shall have no objection if the same is accepted, however, the learned trial Court, on the basis of material available before it, came to the conclusion, which the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, could not show to be erroneous, that the plaintiffs and applicant had connived with each other and there is nothing to show that the applicant-petitioner was a necessary party to the suit. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has not been able to show as to how the petitioner-applicant is a necessary party to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit as no relief in the suit was claimed against her and further Jagtar Singh has specifically denied the delivery of possession of the suit land. Therefore, petitioner-applicant has not CR NO.6153/2008 4 been able to show any semblance of an existing right. In such an eventuality, it is apparent that the petitioner is not at all necessary party to the suit and the application has been filed for extraneous consideration, which has rightly been dismissed by the learned trial Court. Dismissed. 5.3.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge