IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6066 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 21.04.2008 Roop Lal ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate and Mr.Naveen Sharma, Advocate. vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Mukesh Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.M.L.Saini, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Anandpur Sahib, whereby an application for amendment of the plaint moved by the petitioner-plaintiff thereby impleading the Gram Panchayat of village Kartarpur as defendant No.7, has been dismissed. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that he along with other villagers is entitled to use the subject pond to provide drinking water to their cattle and that respondents C.R. No.6066 of 2007 -2- No.5 and 6 have no right to interfere in the said facility. While respondent No.5 is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, respondent No.6 is a private person. In the written statement dated 2.12.2003 filed by the Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, IWDP Hills-II, Garhshankar, the official respondents in para 10 thereof have taken a plea that “the project of village pond had been handed over to the Gram Panchayat after its completion. Now, the Gram Panchayat is the sole owner of the project and it is the sole responsibility of the Gram Panchayat to remove any encroachment on the Panchayat land and to protect and safe-guard the interest of village community.” In the light of the above-stated plea taken by the respondents- defendants, the petitioner applied for amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate necessary averments in the plaint and also to implead the Gram Panchayat as defendant No.7. The aforesaid application, however, has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that since the controversy pertains to the user of a public pond which is under the administrative control of the Gram Panchayat, the Gram Panchayat, if not necessary, is undoubtedly a proper party. The presence of the Gram Panchayat would facilitate the learned trial Court to arrive at a just conclusion. That apart, if the learned trial Court arrives at a conclusion that the Gram Panchayat has been unnecessarily dragged into the litigation by the petitioner-plaintiff, it can be compensated with suitable costs. C.R. No.6066 of 2007 -3- For the reasons aforestated, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 23.8.2007 is set aside and the petitioner-plaintiff is permitted to place on record the amended plaint in which the Gram Panchayat has been arrayed as defendant No.7. April 21, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE