In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2782 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: September 17, 2009 Sai Baba Balaur Shah Prabhandhak Society .. Petitioner Vs. Sat Pal and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.K. Aurora, Advocate for the respondent No.1. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.4.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hoshiarpur, dismissing the application of Sai Baba Balaur Shah Prabhandhak Society (herein referred as 'the society') to implead it as a party defendant to contest the suit filed by the plaintiff-Sat Pal for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Gram Panchayat and others from dispossessing him (the plaintiff) or taking forcible possession of “Sai Dargah Baba Balour Shah” existing in 15 marlas out of the suit land. Facts in the background of the case are that Sat Pal plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant gram panchayat etc. from dispossessing him from the suit land or the 'Musjid' as referred to above constructed in 15 marlas out of the suit land. During the pendency of the suit, the proposed defendant-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') filed the application claiming that the land in dispute is owned by the gram panchayat and controlled by management committee of the village Chak Gujjran represented by the plaintiff and other members since 1995. The plaintiff remained the cashier, vice president of the said committee but due to his wrongful acts, he was not elected as president of the said committee. It has been further submitted that earlier the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction bearing Civil Suit No.249 of 9.4.2004 which was later on dismissed as withdrawn on 15.9.2005. Now plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and it is the committee Civil Revision No. 2782 of 2009 (O&M) -2- *** which is managing its affairs and it being the necessary party needs to be impleaded as such. Arguments heard. The petitioner committee is neither the representative nor agent of the gram panchayat. Undisputedly, as per revenue records, the land in dispute is the ownership of gram panchayat. Earlier father of the plaintiff was in possession of the said property as tenant at will and now the possession is being claimed by the plaintiff. The effect of withdrawal of the previous suit by the plaintiff would be looked into at the time of final adjudication of the case, but here it is to be seen whether the defendant- petitioner is a necessary party to be impleaded in the case with regard to which it would be suffice to observe that the petitioner is neither recorded as owner in possession of the property nor he has any concern with the same. As such, it cannot be said to be a necessary party. Even otherwise, the plaintiff being the dominus litis is at liberty to implead any person as a party against whom he has the cause of action to file the suit. The impugned order does not suggest any illegality much less irregularity deserving interference of this court. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. September 17, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge