C.R.4636 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.4636 of 2008 Date of decision:- 25.11.2009 Mahant Inder Dass petitioner vs Faryad Ali and others Respondent Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate Mr. SK Chopra, Advocate. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? M.M.S.BEDI,J. Vide impugned order dated 22.7.2008, an application filed by the petitioner i.e. Mahant Inder Dass under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as a party in a suit filed by Faryad Ali against Mahant Karam Dass and others, stands dismissed by the trial court. Faryad Ali had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against Mahant Karam Dass and two others pertaining to 26 bighas 0 biswas of land, mentioned in the heading of the plaint, claiming that he had been inducted as a lessee in the property in dispute with effect from the year 2002 pursuant to lease by Sadh Bant Dass. Admittedly, Sadh Bant Dass has already expired in the year 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the suit has been filed by Faryad Ali against Mahant Karam Dass on the pretext that Mahant Karam Dass is chela of Sadh Bant Dass, whereas, as a matter C.R.4636 of 2008 2 of fact it is the applicant- petitioner, who has inherited Mohatmimship after the death of Sadh Bant Dass. He has also contended that the suit, filed by Faryad Ali, is a collusive suit and that he has intentionally not impleaded the petitioner to get an undue advantage of the absence of the petitioner and to create rights of mohatmimship in defendant No.1 Mahant Karam Dass. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has contended that since no relief has been claimed against the petitioner, the trial court has rightly dismissed the application. He claims that it is Mahant Karam Dass, who had been interfering in his possession, as such relief has been claimed against her only. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for respondent No.1. It is an admitted fact that the defendants, who have been impleaded by the plaintiff- respondent No.1 are not contesting the suit and that they have been proceeded against ex-parte. The suit has already been withdrawn against Gurcharan Singh, who intended to contest the suit. It is also an admitted fact that the present petitioner has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the Mahant (Mohatmim of Dera Maufidar) of village Dulwan after the death of Sadh Bant Dass and that he has got legal rights to protect the property of the Dera, situated in Village Dulwan, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur. A copy of the plaint has been brought to the notice of the Court, in which Karam Dass ( defendant No.1), Faryad Ali (plaintiff) and Gurcharan Singh have been impleaded as defendants. The parties admit that the dispute regarding Mohatmimship between the petitioner and Karam Dass has to be decided. There is some other litigation also pending between the petitioner and other claimants of Mohatmimship after the C.R.4636 of 2008 3 death of Sadh Bant Dass, regarding the management of the property of the Dera. It is the settled principle of law that the plaintiff is the dominus litus of the case and in case the relief is not claimed against a particular party in a suit for injunction, the judgment and decree passed in the absence of the said party, will not be binding on the rights of the third party. Since in the case of Faryad Ali against Mahant Karam Dass, mere injunction has been sought for against the defendants, impleaded in the case, the dispute regarding Mohatmimship between the petitioner and defendant No.1 is not to be adjudicated upon. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition is dismissed. However, it is observed that in case any order, judgment and decree is passed in the case of Faryad ali vs Karam Dass, the same will not be binding, in any manner, on the rights of the petitioner and will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner in the litigation pending between the petitioner and Mahant Karam Dass regarding declaration and injunction, sought for in a separate suit. Nothing said in this order will prohibit the parties to seek transfer of litigation regarding the same subject matter to one court by invoking the powers of the learned District Judge under Section 24 CPC. November 25 ,2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) TSM JUDGE