C.R.No.6158 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6158 of 2008. Decided on August 05, 2009. Bawa Bhalinder Pal Singh alias Bawa Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS Hardeep Kaur and another. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Ms.Puja Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Dhawan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff-respondent is wife of late Dalip Singh who was an employee of respondent No.2, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. The petitioner claims himself to be son of Dalip Singh from his marriage with Surinder Kaur and denies the relationship of Hardip Kaur, respondent No.1, with Dalip Singh, as his wife. Petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendant- respondent No.1, which was dismissed by the trial Court on 22.08.2006. The appeal was also dismissed by the District Judge, . . . 1 C.R.No.6158 of 2008 while determining the rival claims of the petitioner (plaintiff in earlier case) and respondent No.1 (defendant in earlier case). It was held that respondent No.1 is entitled to receive the benefits of late deceased Dalip Singh, as he specifically appointed her as his nominee vide document EX.D6, which was further sent by the Corporation to the Head Office for further action vide document EX.D7. The said finding has become final inter se the parties. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent for injunction was dismissed holding that he should have filed a suit for declaration in case he wanted to receive the amount of Family Pension, GPF, Gratuity, DRF amount and other benefits accruing after the death of Dalip Singh. It is pertinent to observe here that while deciding the interim injunction application in that suit, the appellate Court had passed an interim order that the amount which is liable to be paid on account of death of Dalip Singh to his legal heirs should be calculated and deposited in the form of FDR, till the rights of the parties are adjudicated. Pursuant to the said interim order, the various pecuniary benefits accruing after the death of Dalip Singh to his Legal representatives, were deposited in FDR. Since the rights have been finally settled, but the amount deposited in the FDR was not released, it compelled the plaintiff-respondent Hardip Kaur, to file a fresh suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant Corporation to release all the due benefits including the Gratuity, PF, Family Pension and Leave Encashment etc., payable after the death of Dalip Singh, which have been kept by the defendant Corporation as FDRs in compliance with . . . 2 C.R.No.6158 of 2008 the orders of the Court dated 02.12.2002, passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala. The petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, in the said suit and sought to be impleaded as defendant No.2. Vide impugned order, the application filed by petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, has been dismissed, which has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner being a necessary party having a rival claim against the plaintiff-respondent ought to have been made a party. I have taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case and I am of the view that the judgment of Additional District Judge, Patiala, dated 13.08.2007, has become final inter se respondent No.1 and the petitioner in a suit which was filed by none else but the petitioner as plaintiff. Respondent No.1 is not claiming any relief against petitioner and her rights qua the petitioner stand already settled by a judicial decision, which has not been challenged by the petitioner. In view of the said circumstances, the petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party, as such, the application has rightly been dismissed. No ground is made out for interference and hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 05, 2009. rka . . . 3