C.R. No. 152 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 152 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 27, 2009 Balkar Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Amarjit Kaur and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.M.S. Bedi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Gauri Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Balagan. It is claimed that he was duly elected on July 19, 2008 vide notification dated September 2, 2008. Respondents No.1 to 3 had filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the official respondents to declare Amarjit Singh, plaintiff- respondent No.1 as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Balagan. C.R. No. 152 of 2009 [2] The contesting respondents had taken up a specific plea that civil Court does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, vide order dated November 20, 2008 exercising jurisdiction under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC has ordered petitioner and Tarsem Singh to be impleaded as party to the case feeling that their presence is necessary for enabling the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit without adverting to the legal objections regarding the maintainability of the suit in the light of provisions of Article 243 –O (b) of the Constitution of India and Section 74 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, (for short ‘the Act’). As per Article 243 O of the Constitution of India, no election of any Panchayat can be called in question except by an election petition presented to an Authority competent under law appointed by the State. As per Section 74 of the Act, no election of a Sarpanch can be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XII of the said Act. Unless and until the respondent- plaintiffs challenged the election and appointment of the petitioner as Sarpanch, he cannot be deemed to be a necessary or proper party in a suit for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff- respondents in which no relief has been even claimed against the petitioner. It is also pertinent to observe that an objection has been taken up by the defendant in the written statement that the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. The respondents having intentionally not impleaded the petitioner as a defendant and having claimed no relief specifically against the petitioner, he cannot be dragged into the C.R. No. 152 of 2009 [3] litigation which prima facie appears to be not maintainable in view of the specific statute. It is settled principle of law that the Civil Court will not have jurisdiction in a matter. It is expressed or impliedly barred by any statute. Without expression of any opinion regarding the maintainability of the suit of the plaintiff- respondents against other defendants, the impleadment of the petitioner suo motu by the Court seems to be improper and illegal. Without determining its jurisdiction, the trial Court has opted to array the petitioner as a party in the case. The impugned order dated November 20, 2008 is, thus, not sustainable. The petition is allowed. Impugned order dated November 20, 2008 is hereby set aside. July 27, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE