IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1408 of 2008 Date of Decision: 17.12.2008 Dal Chand Memorial Trust & Management Society, Ferozepur Cantt. .......Pettioner through Shri Sandeep Khunger, Advocate. Versus Mohinder Kumar Jain and another. ....... Respondent no.1 in person. Respondent no.2 through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against order dated 26.2.2008 by which Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') declined the prayer of the petitioner for being impleaded as a party in the suit preferred by respondent no.1. Briefly stated the facts are that respondent no.1-Mohinder Kumar Jain filed a suit against respondent no.2-Raj Kumar Jain, who is his brother, for permanent injunction with the following prayer:- “Hence, it is prayed that the decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from recovering the amount of Rs.1,15,000/- which is the amount of arbitration award dated C.R.No.1408 of 2008 -2- .... 7th November,2005 from the occupiers of the properties bearing Municipal Number 163 (Part) situated on the Railway Road, Ferozepur Cantt., as well as property No.144, Sadar Bazar Road, Ferozepur Cantt., where presently Dal Chand Memorial Jain Higher Secondary School is being run, fully shown in yellow colour in the attached two site plans and further from forcibly dispossessing the occupiers of the property mentioned above may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with costs.” In the suit, respondent no.1 claimed to be the exclusive/ absolute legal owner of the portion of the properties bearing Municipal No.163 (Part) situated on the Railway Road, Ferozepur Cantt. Which he specifically delineated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the plaint. The petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. Claiming that it is owner in possession of the properties in question which have been described in the plaint and that the suit between Mohinder Kumar Jain and Raj Kumar Jain, who have been arrayed as respondents herein, is collusive one. It was averred that in the written statement filed by respondent no.2, he has admitted first two paragraphs of the plaint and this necessitated the filing of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. as any finding on the question of the title of the properties as described in the plaint which belonged to the petitioner will be prejudicial to its interests. It was, thus, pleaded that the petitioner was an interested person in the suit and, therefore, a necessary party. C.R.No.1408 of 2008 -3- .... The trial Court, after considering the material before it, dismissed the application of the petitioner by holding that it was not an essential party. Hence, this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit inter- se between respondent nos. 1 and 2, being collusive in nature, is likely to impact the rights of the petitioner as it is actually the owner in possession of the properties in question which have wrongly been described by respondent no.1 as being in his ownership and possession and the said fact has not been controverted by respondent no.2, implying thereby that a finding to this effect is likely to follow in the proceedings because of any denial to the averments made in the suit. It was pointed out that respondent no.2 has filed a reply to the present proceedings in which he has admitted that the school which belongs to the petitioner-Trust is being run from the same premises and this is reflected in paragraphs 2 to 6 & 8 thereof and if the corresponding paragraphs of the revision petition are to be considered, then the facts have been admitted since in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 6, the petitioner has pleaded as follows:- “ Paragraphs 2,3, 4 and 6 of the Revision Petition. 2. That Rai Sahib Tulsi Ram and Khub Chand were the two sons of Shri Dal Chand. Rajinder Parshad was the adopted son of Tulsi Ram and Deepak Kumar President of the petitioner Society is the son of Rajinder Parshad. Mohinder Kumar and Raj Kumar, respondents are sons of Khub Chand son of Dal C.R.No.1408 of 2008 -4- .... Chand as is clear from the following pedigree table:- Dal Chand I I I I I Rai Sahib Tulsi Ram Khub Chand I I I I Rajinder Parshad __________I__________ I I I I Mohinder Kumar Raj Kumar I I _____I________________ I I I I Deepak Parmod Vinod Ajay 3. That the present suit was filed by Mohinder Kumar son of Khub Chand against his own real brother Raj Kumar for permanent injunction from recovering the amount of Rs.1,15,000/- which is said to be the amount of one Arbitration award dated 7.11.2005 from the occupiers of the property bearing Municipal No. 163 situated on the Railway Road, Ferozepur Cantt. As well as Property No. 144, Sadar Bazar Road, Ferozoepur Cantt. where presently Dal Chand Memorial Jain Higher Secondary School is being run. The said suit was a result of collusion between Respondent No.1 and 2 as neither Respondent no.1 (plaintiff) nor the respondent No.2 ( defendant) has any right, title or interest and none of them is in possession of any part of the said property. A true copy of the plaint dated 26.11.2005 filed by Respondent No.1 is C.R.No.1408 of 2008 -5- .... annexed herewith as Annexure P/2. 4. That the Respondent No.2 filed the written statement dated 8.2.2005 virtually admitting the claim of the respondent No.1- plaintiff. A copy of the written statement filed by Respondent No.2 is annexed herewith as Annexure P/3. 6. That in Para 2 of the plaint it has been alleged that there was an Arbitration Award dated 7.11.2005 adjudicating the alleged dispute between the parties in respect of the above mentioned two properties. The petitioner Society has inspected the record of the trial Court but no such arbitration award has been brought on the record of the trial Court.” It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.2 has admitted in his reply that the school is being run from the premises, but he has denied the ownership of the petitioner. On the basis of above, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner is a necessary party and, therefore, it ought to have been impleaded in the suit. Reliance was placed on Gram Panchayat Garhi Versus Dharamvir & Ors., 1998(2) Civil Court Cases 461 (P&H) and Naresh Kumar Versus Surinder Singh, 2001(2) Civil Court cases 580 (P&H). To controvert the claim of the petitioner, respondent no.1- Mohinder Kumar Jain appeared in person and filed his written submissions raising the following pleas:- (1)that there is no error in the impugned order; C.R.No.1408 of 2008 -6- .... (2) that in the suit for permanent injunction, the question of title cannot be looked into. To support this lea, reliance was placed on Ramji Rai & Another Versus Jagdish Mallah (Dead) through L.Rs. & another, 2007(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 680 (S.C.); (3) that the petitioner has not produced on record any authenticated copy of the alleged registration certificate to show that it is a registered society and hence, the revision petition is not maintainable. Reliance was placed on Murti Vaishnu Mata alias Durga Mata Versus Vaishnu Dutt, 1997 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 360 (P&H); (4) that under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, only a certified copy of the registered document duly certified by Registrar is admissible in evidence. Reliance was placed on Kalyan Singh Versus Smt.Chhoti and others, AIR 1990 S.C. 396; (5) that after the amendment of Section 115 of the C.P.C., no revision petition is maintainable against the impugned order. Reliance was placed on Gayatri Devi & Ors. Versus Shashi Pal Singh, 2005(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 1 (S.C.); (6) that the petitioner is not a party to the Arbitration Award dated 7.11.2005 and, therefore, it has no concern with the suit. Reliance was placed on Harcharan Singh Versus Financial Commissiioner, Revenue, Punjab, 1996(3) R.C.R. C.R.No.1408 of 2008 -7- .... (Civil) 593 (P&H); (7) that respondent no.1- Mohinder Kumar Jain has sought relief only against Rakesh Kumar Jain and in a suit for injunction, the petitioner against whom no relief has been sought cannot be impleaded as a party. Reliance on placed on Harcharan Singh Versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab (supra); (8) that the petition has been filed by Deepak Kumar Goyal as President of the alleged society, but no material has been placed on record to show that he is the President of the society. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.1 in person and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. Indeed, in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff is a dominus litus and he is free to implead a person as party from whom he has a threat to his rights. In the instant case, if the prayer which has been made in the suit is to be noticed, then, respondent no.1, who is the plaintiff, has pleaded that the arbitration award which has come into existence and which is inter se between him and respondent no.2,be not executed as against his properties as he is owner in possession of the same. In this view of the matter, the trial Court would be compelled to return a finding as to whether the property of respondent no.1 can be proceeded against pursuant to the execution of the arbitration award and the possibility of an oblique finding C.R.No.1408 of 2008 -8- .... being returned regarding the ownership of respondent no.1 to the properties in question cannot be ruled out. The petitioner, who is also claiming to be the owner in possession of these properties in the instant proceedings, can not get a conclusive finding from the trial Court in so far as its ownership and possession qua the said properties are concerned. For this, it will necessarily have to file a suit for declaration and of course, the proper remedy will be to prefer separate proceedings, but the propriety would demand that both the proceedings be decided together, but that is in the eventuality of such suit being filed by the petitioner. In the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for becoming a party to the suit inter se between the respondents for permanent injunction with a limited prayer, the petitioner cannot get any relief in its favour. In this view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. December 17,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge