C.M.No.3012-CII of 2009 and 1 Civil Revision No.5842 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.3012-CII of 2009 and Civil Revision No.5842 of 2008 Date of Decision:22.07.2009 Smt.Mahendri d/o Surat Singh .....Petitioner versus M/s Faridabad Gurgaon Mineral Limited and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr.Vikram Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) C.M.No.3012-CII of 2009 This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for vacation of ex parte stay order dated 17.11.2008 passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the parties state that the main case itself may be heard. With the consent of the parties, main case is taken up for hearing today itself. Civil Revision No.5842 of 2008 In view of the order of even date passed in C.M.No.3012-CII of C.M.No.3012-CII of 2009 and 2 Civil Revision No.5842 of 2008 2009, the present revision petition is taken up for hearing today. The plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned order dated 16.10.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial Court whereby the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by respondent No.1-M/s Faridabad Gurgaon Mineral Limited for impleading it as a party-defendant in the suit, was allowed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case necessary for the present revision petition are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration and joint possession to the effect that she was owner in joint possession of the suit property and for setting aside the decree dated 19.09.1998 passed in civil suit No.565 and mutation Nos.2369 and 2668 sanctioned on the basis thereof are a nullity and have no effect on her rights against defendant Nos.1 to 3 i.e. (respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein). The suit was instituted on 03.06.2008. The applicant-respondent No.1 on 21.08.2008 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a party with the averments that the applicant had taken the land bearing Khewat No.19/11, rectangle and Killa Nos.24/18/1 and 19, situated within the revenue estate of village Jatti Kalan on lease from Jasbir Singh-defendant No.2 on 08.02.2008 for a period of one year for stocking the sand and other building materials. It was further averred that the applicant had not excavated any earth or sand from the land under lease but had stocked 8,00,000 cubic feet sand on the aforesaid land which is to be lifted from the suit land. The trial Court vide the impugned order had allowed the applicant to be impleaded as party in the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made three-fold C.M.No.3012-CII of 2009 and 3 Civil Revision No.5842 of 2008 submissions to assail the order impugned in the present revision petition. Firstly, that the plaintiff-petitioner has not claimed any relief against the applicant; secondly, that the applicant was not a necessary party; and lastly that separate suit can be filed by the applicant. He has further submitted that for the aforesaid reasons, the applicant ought not to have been allowed to be impleaded as party-defendant by the trial Court. He has placed reliance on the judgments reported as Ranbir Singh and another Versus Ran Singh and others, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 278; Dalvir Singh Versus Gurdarshan Singh, 2001(2) RCR (Civil) 150; and Sanjay Verma Versus Manik Roy and Others, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 408. Controverting the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for applicant-respondent No.1 has submitted that the trial Court on 10.06.2008 had directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding alienation and excavation of the suit land. The said order necessitated the applicant to file an application for impleading it as a party as by this order its rights created in respect of the suit land by way of the lease deed dated 08.02.2008 were adversely affected. The learned counsel, thus, supported the impugned order. None of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner are impressive which calls for acceptance by this Court. It is not in dispute that vide interim order dated 10.06.2008, the trial Court had ordered the parties to maintain status quo regarding alienation and excavation of the suit land. The said order affected the rights of the applicant inasmuch as it had to remove 8,00,000 cubic feet sand which had been stocked on the land in dispute in terms of the lease deed dated 08.02.2008 created in its favour by defendant No.2-Jasbir Singh. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was not a necessary party in the light of interim order dated 10.06.2008 passed by the trial Court. The C.M.No.3012-CII of 2009 and 4 Civil Revision No.5842 of 2008 judgments in Ranbir Singh, Dalvir Singh and Sanjay Verma's cases (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not help the petitioner as the controversy involved therein is altogether different from the case in hand. Further, the learned trial Court while allowing the application filed by the applicant-respondent No.1 in para 5 of its order has noticed as under:- “In view of the submission made by the counsel for the parties, it is very much clear that plaintiff has filed this suit on 02.06.2008 against the defendants on the allegation that a decree by virtue of which defendants have become owner of this suit property is null and void and it is the plaintiff who is the real owner and in joint possession of the land. So the mutations sanctioned on the basis of impugned decree are having no effect on the rights of the plaintiff. But as far as the interest of the applicant is concerned, the perusal of lease deed placed on file clearly goes to show that applicant has entered into a lease with defendant No.2 on 01.02.2008 for the purpose of stocking sand or any other material for a period of one year i.e. 08.02.2008 to 07.02.2009 on the lease land at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per annum. It has been clearly mentioned in the lease deed that the sand has been excavated from the disputed land up to the water level and there is no sand in the said land which could be excavated. Meaning thereby, the lease was meant only for the purpose of stocking sand. It is pertinent to mention here that applicant has entered into C.M.No.3012-CII of 2009 and 5 Civil Revision No.5842 of 2008 this lease agreement with defendant No.2 before four months prior to the institution of the suit. It seems that due to the said order granted by the court the interest of the applicant is suffering as they have to shift the sand which has been stocked over the disputed property. Meaning thereby, applicant's interest is involved in the present case. As far as question of “nullity of decree” is concerned then, it is yet to be decided after taking evidence on this point. At this point of time, prima facie, presence of applicant is necessary for proper adjudication of suit. I place my reliance on Katuri Vs. Iyyampoenimal and Others, 2006(I) LJR 848 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that proper parties are those whose presence before the court would be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions in the suit although no relief in the suit was claimed against such persons. Hence, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is hereby allowed with no order as to costs”. In view of the above, no ground to interfere by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. July 22, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) seema JUDGE