C.R. No. 89 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 89 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 11.1.2010 Om Parkash Sood .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.12.2009 passed by the learned trial Court vide which the application moved by the petitioner for being impleaded as co-plaintiff with the State of Punjab stands dismissed. The plaintiff – State of Punjab filed a suit for possession against the defendants claiming itself to be the owner of the property in dispute, and that the defendants are in unauthorised occupation of Government land. The petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the plea, that prior to filing of the present suit, a writ petition was filed in this Court by some of the persons directing the State of Punjab to act against the persons in unauthorised occupation. In the said writ petition the petitioner had moved an application for being impleaded as party, which was allowed, and this Court disposed of the writ petition with a liberty to the State Government to file a civil suit for seeking recovery of possession. It is after the decision of the writ petition, that the C.R. No. 89 of 2010 2 State of Punjab filed a suit for possession against the persons in unauthorised occupation. The application moved by the petitioner has been rejected primarily on the ground, that the plaintiff is dominus-litus of the case, and the petitioner, therefore, could not be impleaded as plaintiff, against the wishes of plaintiff, specially when the petitioner has no personal right in the land in dispute. It was further held, that the petitioner is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit, as no right of the plaintiff is going to be affected by the decision of the case, and also that the State Government is properly prosecuting the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the petitioner being a responsible citizen was interested party to save public property from unscrupulous people. The learned Court below, therefore, committed an error in dismissing the application. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Civil Court is to determine the rights of the parties inter-se. The suit filed by the plaintiff is for possession on the basis of ownership. The learned Court was right in holding that the petitioner has no right or interest in the suit, therefore, he cannot be said to be either necessary or proper party to the suit, only being the responsible citizen of the country. The Government is prosecuting the case with due diligence. No merit. Dismissed. 11.1.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE