R.S.A. No.3537 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.3537 of 2006 Date of Decision:06.11.2008 Smt. Urmil .....Appellant Vs. Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt through its Estate Officer, Punjab Wakf Board, Sangrur .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate for the appellant. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment/ decree dated 11.5.2006 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment/ decree dated 13.10.2005 rendered by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur whereby she decreed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising any sort of construction over the suit property except one shop and residential room on the ground floor as sanctioned as per `No Objection Certificate' without prior written permission of the plaintiff and further restrained the defendant from alienating the suit property by way of lease or subletting to any other person with a further direction to the defendant to remove the foundations/ construction made on the suit property contrary to the lease deed within two months. R.S.A. No.3537 of 2006 -2- The factual matrix is that the defendant took the disputed land on lease vide lease order No.752/36 dated 31.3.1997 at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from the plaintiff Board. She has started constructing the shops on suit land and filled the foundations in contravention with the lease order. She was asked to desist from doing so and to remove the unauthorised construction, but she continued putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately, refused to admit the request of the plaintiff. She has threatened to make further construction over the suit land and to alienate it to other persons by making shops. In her written statement, she has admitted ownership of the plaintff qua the property in dispute as well as the factum of lease. She has alleged that she is not in possession of the suit land and that in fact Janak Rani wife of Lekh Raj, resident of Basti Jhujhar Singh, Krishanpura, Sangrur and others are in possession of the suit land and they are making construction over the same; that she has to do nothing with this construction; that she came to know about this construction on receipt of the summons. Lastly, it has been prayed that the suit may be dismissed. The following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1) Whether plaintiff being owner is entitled to permanent injunction prayed for? OPP 2) Whether plaintiff has got no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 3) Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4) Whether plaint is not properly verified? OPD 5) Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD R.S.A. No.3537 of 2006 -3- 6. Relief. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the defendant went up in appeal, which also met failure. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment/ decree dated 11.5.2006, the defendant has preferred this appeal. The following substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court:- “Whether the suit without impleading the necessary parties, when the objection was raised to that effect, can be decided or decreed?” I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, besides perusing the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and circumspection. Learned counsel for the appellant urged with great eloquence that as is borne out from the impugned judgment, the defendant denied her possession over the suit land and put forth that as a matter of fact, the persons mentioned in the written statement are in possession of the same, but without joining those persons, both the Courts below have passed the decrees and on this sole score, the impugned judgments/ decrees are liable to be set aside. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with these submissions. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the owner of the land in dispute. The defendant has denied her physical possession over the suit property. In view of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the persons alleged by the defendant would not be bound by the impugned R.S.A. No.3537 of 2006 -4- judgments/ decrees. There was no bar in decreeing the suit without joining the alleged necessary parties. The effect of their non-joining is that the impugned judgments/ decrees would not to be binding upon them. If she is not in possession, where was the necessity for her to feel aggrieved with the impugned judgments/ decrees. The learned trial Court has observed that “in view of my findings over issue No.1 above, I hold that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of parties.” On going through the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below, it emanates that these are based on evidence and call for no interference. Seuqelly, this appeal is dismissed. November 06, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE