C.R. No. 4060 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4060 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.9.2011 Jaswant Singh ....Petitioner. Versus The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Virk, Advocate for Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 18.5.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by respondents No.4 and 5 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading them as parties in the suit, was allowed. 2. Put shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit against defendants-respondents No.1 to 3 for prohibitory injunction to the effect that they be restrained from disconnecting the electricity connection of the tubewell of the petitioner installed in village Jafar Pur, Tehsil and C.R. No. 4060 of 2010 -2- District Gurdaspur. It was pleaded that the petitioner being an ex- serviceman applied for tubewell connection in his land comprised in khasra No. 18/19 for irrigation purposes and on the basis of that application, he was sanctioned a tubewell connection and he got the same installed at his own costs. In the year 2007, a dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No.3 regarding the boundary line/identity of the property owned by them at the spot and during demarcation, it was found that the tubewell got installed by the petitioner was installed in the property owned by respondent No.3 and that was bonafide mistake on the part of the petitioner and respondent No.3. On 25.10.2007, a compromise was arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.3 whereby they exchanged their property to the extent of 1 kanal and on the basis thereof, the petitioner and respondent No.3 took possession of the property. Due to party faction in the village, respondent No.3 wanted to disconnect the tubewell connection of the petitioner. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed their written statement pleading that the disputed electric connection was not running in the place where it was initially installed and the petitioner got the aforesaid tubewell installed at the other site in violation of the provisions of the PSEB Rules. It was further pleaded that a case FIR No. 135 dated 17.12.2008, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was also registered against the petitioner and respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 in his written statement pleaded that the disputed tubewell of the petitioner was installed in the property owned by respondent No.3. The fact of compromise between the petitioner and respondent No.3 was admitted. It was further pleaded C.R. No. 4060 of 2010 -3- that as respondent No.3 had got every right to get the disputed tubewell removed from the spot so as to shift the same in the property of the petitioner. 3. During the pendency of the suit, Dalbir Singh and Sarup Singh, defendant-respondents No.4 and 5 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as parties on the ground that the petitioner got prepared a forged and fabricated affidavit regarding no objection from them and the said affidavit did not bear their thumb impression and signatures. It was further pleaded that a criminal case bearing FIR No. 135 was registered against the petitioner on 17.12.2008 at their instance. It was also pleaded that they were necessary and proper parties. 4. The trial court vide order dated 18.5.2010 allowed the application and defendants No.4 and 5 were ordered to be impleaded being proper parties. Hence, the present revision petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff-petitioner had not claimed any relief against the respondents No.4 and 5 and moreover he was master of the suit and nobody could be impleaded against his wishes. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, AIR 2005 SC 2813. According to the learned counsel the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down two tests before a party could be impleaded. The same are:- “i) There must be a right to some relief against C.R. No. 4060 of 2010 -4- such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings. ii) No effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party.” 7. The trial court recorded that there was an averment in the application filed by defendants No.4 and 5 that the plaintiff had prepared and fabricated their affidavits regarding no objection so that the connection could be released to the plaintiff-petitioner. It was also stated that FIR No. 135 was registered on 17.12.2008 against the plaintiff with regard to the said affidavits and also the connection. The trial court after appreciating the material came to the conclusion that the applicants-defendants No.4 and 5 were proper and necessary parties for the lis and accordingly impleaded them. The relevant observations recorded by the trial court read thus:- “2. The respondent-plaintiff on the other hand denied the status of the applicants that they are necessary or proper party. It was alleged by the respondent that the criminal case is false and was got registered against them under police influence. 3. The perusal of copy of FIR got registered against the respondent-plaintiff showed that the present applicants are interested in the subject matter i.e. connection in question. They alleged that the respondent-plaintiff committed the offence of forgery by preparing the false affidavit in getting the connection released in his favour. Thus, the C.R. No. 4060 of 2010 -5- applicants are certainly necessary and proper party to be impleaded as defendants. Thus, the application is allowed and the applicants are arrayed as defendant nos. 4 and 5.” 8. The principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kasturi's case (supra) are well recognized. However, the same have to be seen in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner was not able to dispute that the affidavits had been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, the authenticity and veracity of which was objected to by respondents No.4 and 5 and that the same had been submitted for getting the connection released. It was also not disputed that the FIR was registered against the plaintiff-petitioner. In such circumstances, though the plaintiff is the master of his suit but at the same time the party connected with the suit property cannot be held not to be proper and necessary party for being impleaded in the suit. 9. In view of the above, finding no merit in this revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. September 26, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE