Civil Revision No. 6760 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6760 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 9th, 2011 Surinder Kumar and others .... Petitioners Versus Jagdish and others. .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate, for the petitioners. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. By way of the order dated 18.8.2011 (Annexure P5), learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Naraingarh has allowed an application of Jagdish, respondent No.1, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as one of the defendants in suit titled Dhani Ram Vs. Surinder Kumar and others. It is this order, which is challenged by Surinder Kumar and others by way of this revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dhani Ram, respondent No.2, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he and Mani Ram, defendant No.4 are owners in equal share of land measuring 48 kanals situated in the revenue estate of village Bari Rasaur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala and for declaration that decree dated 10.6.1987 in civil suit titled Surinder Kumar etc. Vs. Sadhu Civil Revision No. 6760 of 2011 2 .. Ram and decree dated 5.11.1996 in civil suit titled Mani Ram etc. Vs. Surinder Kumar etc. are illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 in the aforesaid land. In the aforesaid suit, Jagdish claiming himself to be a son of Sadhu Ram and brother of plaintiff and defendant No. 4 claimed to have a share in the suit property to the extent of 1/4th and has claimed himself to be a necessary party and has prayed for being impleaded as one of the defendants. The application has been opposed by the plaintiff claiming the same to be not maintainable, having been filed to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. He is denied to have any interest in the suit property and consequently, he is denied to be a necessary party to the suit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Naraingarh allowed the application for the reason that he is brother of the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 and as he is claiming interest in the suit property, he is a necessary party to the suit. Four of the defendants have challenged this order arraying the plaintiff, Dhani Ram as respondent No.2. I have heard Mr.Vikram Punia, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record. Since the plaintiff is dominus litus of a suit and can choose the defendants to contest his case, this revision petition having been brought by the defendants, its maintainability was required to be established. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that that defendants can also oppose the application for impleadment of a party to a suit. In support of his submission, he has drawn my attention to a Civil Revision No. 6760 of 2011 3 .. decision of Hon`ble Andhra Pradesh High Court reported as Ravipati Harischandra Prasad Vs. Manda Surya Kantham and others 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 805. It was a case where the defendants filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for addition of two more defendants. It has been held that the court can allow addition of defendants at the instance of the defendants. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the analogy of this reasoning, a defendant can oppose the addition of a party also. I fail to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Allowing an application of the defendant to add two more defendants is not on the same footing as opposing an addition of a party by the defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in the property left by Sadhu Ram, Jagdish, respondent who has been allowed by learned trial court to be impleaded as a defendant, had got his share separated by way of partition. According to him, after that he was left with no right in the suit land. He drew my attention in this regard to Annexure P6, the instrument of partition, where land measuring 26 kanals is shown to have fallen to the share of Jagdish son of Sadhu Ram. The question whether the respondent, Jagdish is left with no share in the land measuring 48 kanals, i.e., the suit land, and that the suit land is the land of the share of the plaintiff and defendant No.4 alone, is a question of fact which cannot be decided in the absence of evidence. If the claim of Jagdish that he has a share in the suit property requires evidence to be decided, then Jagdish is not only a proper party but a Civil Revision No. 6760 of 2011 4 .. necessary party to the suit. Moreover, the defendants cannot question the order passed by learned trial court allowing Jagdish, respondent No.1 to be impleaded as a defendant to the suit. For these reasons, I find no illegality in the impugned order and finding the revision petition to be devoid of merit, dismiss the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 9th, 2011 som