Civil Revision No.4826 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4826 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:03.08.2010. Om Parkash and others ...petitioners Versus Sarv Dharam Ekta Mandir Dharamshala Society & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is preferred by the applicants who had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short CPC] for impleading them as defendants in the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1. While dismissing the application, following observations have been made by the learned Trial Court: - “In order to settle the claim of the applicants, whether they are necessary parties or required to be impleaded as defendants in this case, it is necessary to go through the pleadings of the plaint, wherein, the plaintiff Civil Revision No.4826 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ***** has sought simple relief of permanent injunction against Hira Lal from dispossessing the plaintiff from the property shown as green in the site plan, which is in possession of the plaintiff and further defendants be restrained from raising any type of illegal construction in the portion, which is in possession of the plaintiff society. First of all, plaintiff has not claimed any Khasra number, rather admittedly placed on the file copy of site plan and some photographs, where from it is established that there is an old Mandir and they sought relief regarding that purpose, but the applicants in their application, alleging that they are owners of the property bearing Khasra No.1982/570, 1983/570 and 1984/570, total 2K-19 marlas as entered in the jamabandi for the year 2002-03, but the plaintiff has never claimed any relief in regard to that Khasra number. So, I think the applicants are not necessary parties being reason if the plaintiff has not claimed any specific relief regarding specific khasra Civil Revision No.4826 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ***** number as mentioned in the application, then applicants have no right to be impleaded as party i.e. defendants. Moreover the plaintiff filed different suits against different persons i.e. Civil Suit No.92 dated 04.08.2006, titled “Sarab Dharam Ekta Mandir Dharmshala Society Vs. Kuldeep Dhawan etc.” and that suit was decided on 29.05.2008 by the court of Mrs. Lukhvinder Kaur, then Civil Judge (jr. Divn.), Amritsar. I have also considered the rulings referred by learned counsel for the applicants cited in 2008(2) Apex Court Judgments 015(SC), “V.J.Thomas Vs. Pathrose Abraham & Ors.” and 2007(2) RCR 471 (SC), “Sumtibai & others Vs. Paras Finance Co.”. I have gone through these rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court and find that the facts of these rulings are not identical to the facts of the case in hand, therefore, these rulings are not applicable in any manner in the present case.” Although learned counsel for the petitioners has argued vehemently that the petitioners also deserve to be impleaded as defendants, but in the suit for permanent injunction no relief is being Civil Revision No.4826 of 2010 (O&M) -4- ***** sought against the petitioners as they are not allegedly raising any construction over the land in dispute. In a suit for permanent injunction where a plaintiff claims to protect his possessory rights from invasion by a particular person, only that person is a necessary party. In view thereof, I do not find any error in the order of the learned Court below and as such the present revision petition is dismissed in limine. July 30, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE