Civil Revision No. 7550 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7550 of 2011 Date of decision. 07.12.2011 Bahadur Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus Harpal Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.29089-CII of 2011 The application praying for exemption from filing certified copies of annexures P-2 and P-3 is allowed. CR No. 7550 of 2011 Bahadur Singh and Balwinder Kaur have brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.08.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh, vide which their application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been dismissed. Harpal Singh and 13 others had brought a suit against gram panchayat of village Jhambala,Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib for permanent injunction restraining the gram panchayat from interfering Civil Revision No. 7550 of 2011 --2-- in their peaceful possession over the suit property and demolishing their houses standing thereon. In the said suit, being contested by the respondent gram panchayat, the petitioners moved an application for being impleaded as party. They claimed that the plaintiffs in the suit have wrongly represented to the court that they are members of the scheduled castes. According to them, they are members of Jat community and the resolution of the panchayat does not apply to them. They have claimed stay order to have been obtained on false and fabricated grounds and that they have suppressed the material facts from the court. It is, thus, claimed that it is a fit case where the petitioners- applicants should be impleaded as party to the suit. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs. They have admitted that they are not members of scheduled castes, but they claimed that the notification applies to them. They denied the applicants to have any interest in the suit property. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Amloh, vide the impugned order, has dismissed the application of the petitioners holding that they are neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. It is further observed by learned trial court that the gram panchayat is the necessary party, who is already contesting the suit as defendant. Learned trial court has further observed that the plaintiff is dominus litus of the suit and he cannot be compelled to litigate against the person against whom he seeks no relief. Civil Revision No. 7550 of 2011 --3-- Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have brought this revision petition. I have heard Mr.Gurinderjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to Annexure P-1, a copy of order passed by the Collector/BDPO, Fatehgarh Sahib on an application filed by Bahadur Singh and others under the provisions of section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. According to him, the Collector has ordered dispossession of Harpal Singh and others, 34 in number from the suit property and now they have filed the suit in collusion with gram panchayat to protect their illegal possession over the panchayat land. He has submitted that in these circumstances, the petitioners-applicants had been necessary party to the suit and learned trial court has erred in declining their prayer. The gram panchayat is there to protect its interests. The gram panchayat is admittedly the only defendant in the suit brought by Harpal Singh and others. It is evident from the order of learned trial court that gram panchayat is already contesting the suit. There is nothing in the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC suggesting that gram panchayat is colluding with Harpal Singh and others and would not be in a position to protect the property vesting in it. Civil Revision No. 7550 of 2011 --4-- In these circumstances when gram panchayat is contesting the suit and there is no allegation in the application that it is colluding with the plaintiffs of the suit, learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be heard arguing that the gram panchayat is colluding with the plaintiffs. Therefore the applicants-petitioners, who are neither any member of the gram panchayat nor have any specific interest in the suit property, cannot be held to be necessary or even proper party to the suit. Learned trial court has, thus, rightly found the petitioners to be neither necessary nor proper party to the suit and has rightly dismissed their application. Consequently, I find no merit in the revision petition and dismiss the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 07.12.2011 dinesh