Civil Revision No. 854 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 854 of 2010 Date of decision : March 15, 2010 Mohan Shyam and others ....Petitioners versus Munshidhar and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. J.K. Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. BK Bagri, Advocate, for respondent no. 9 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiffs have come up by way of this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 23.11.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari thereby allowing application moved by respondent no. 9 Deen Dayal under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) and thereby impleading respondent no. 9 as party to the suit filed by the petitioners against respondent nos. 1 to 8 only. Plaintiffs have filed suit for permanent injunction alleging that plaintiffs and proforma defendants no. 3 to 8 are owners in possession of the suit property and defendants no. 1 and 2 wanted to interfere in their Civil Revision No. 854 of 2010 -2- possession and construction being raised by them. Plaintiffs accordingly sought permanent injunction restraining defendants no. 1 and 2 from interfering in peaceful possession of plaintiffs and defendants no. 3 to 8 and from causing any obstruction in the construction work of boundary walls being raised by them. Respondent no. 9 herein alleged that Nand Kishore purchased the suit property in auction as general attorney of firm M/s Ramjiwan Tek Chand of which Ramjiwan and Tek Chand were partners having equal shares. Consequently, Ramjiwan and Tek Chand were owners of the suit property in equal shares. On their death, the firm stood dissolved. Respondent no. 9 Deen Dayal being grandson of Tek Chand has 1/4th share in the suit property and is, therefore, necessary party to the suit. His application has been allowed by the trial court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners have filed suit for permanent injunction only and therefore question of title is not required to be adjudicated upon in the suit and if respondent no. 9 has any dispute regarding title, he can file separate suit but he is not proper or necessary party to the instant suit. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on three judgments of this Court namely Rampat versus Shri Mandir Thakur Dwara at Suhra and ors.,1987 PLJ 654, Amar Singh versus Gram Panchayat, Sabun, 1992 PLJ 69 and Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association (Regd.), Amritsar versus Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association, Amritsar, 1998(3) PLR 589. In Civil Revision No. 854 of 2010 -3- all these cases, applicant wanted to be impleaded as party to suit for injunction claiming title in the suit property. The applicant was held to be not proper or necessary party to the suit. All these three judgments fully apply to the facts of the instant case and therefore, respondent no. 9 cannot be said to be proper or necessary party to the suit for injunction filed by the petitioners. No judgment to the contrary has been cited by learned counsel for respondent no. 9. Even otherwise, plaintiffs are the masters of the suit. The plaintiffs are not claiming any relief against respondent no. 9. For this reason as well, respondent no. 9 cannot be said to be proper or necessary party to the suit. If respondent no. 9 claims any right, title or interest in the suit property, he would be at liberty to stake his claim by filing separate suit. Obviously decree that may be passed in the instant suit would not be binding on respondent no. 9 who is not party to the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kasturi versus Iyyamperumal & Ors., 2005(4) J.T. 565. In that case, suit was for specific performance of agreement to sell. A third person wanted to be impleaded as party claiming title in the suit property. Even in suit for specific performance of agreement to sell the property, such a third person was held to be not proper or necessary party to the suit. In the instant case, petitioners are on a much better footing because they have filed simple suit for permanent injunction. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, it has to be concluded that respondent no. 9 is neither proper nor necessary party to the suit. The impugned order is completely unsustainable. The revision petition is Civil Revision No. 854 of 2010 -4- accordingly allowed and impugned order Annexure P/1 is set aside and application filed by respondent no. 9 for being impleaded as party to the suit is dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 15, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'