Civil Revision No.13 of 2008 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.13 of 2008 Date of Decision: May 14, 2008 Sukhbir Kaur @ Kashmir Kaur alias Jasvir Kaur ...Petitioner VERSUS Dilbagh Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of 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? Present: Mr.Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner-plaintiff filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC which has been dismissed. The suit, which was filed by the petitioner, was contested by the respondents and in the written statement it was pleaded that necessary parties had not been Civil Revision No.13 of 2008 (O&M) : 2 : impleaded. The suit being for declaration and in the alternative for joint possession, the requirement of impleading all the necessary parties would always be essential and no effective decree could be passed in favour of the petitioner otherwise. Taking this to be a formal defect within the meaning of order, the petitioner had filed this application which has been declined. The petitioner had, thus, sought permission to withdraw the instant suit to file a fresh one. The defendant-respondents, however, objected to this prayer of the petitioner and pointed out that there was no technical or formal defect for which the permission as sought could be granted to the petitioner. The court, while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, noticed that non-joinder of a necessary party is a formal defect, but however, went on to observe that the sale had taken place during the pendency of the suit and thus the vendees would be bound by the outcome of a suit or the decree, if any, by doctrine of lis pendens. It is also noticed that the suit for declaration regarding the ownership of the suit land to the extent of 1/6th share was not conducted by the petitioner with proper care and due diligence as suit against defendant Nos.2 to 7 had already been dismissed in terms of Order 9 Rule 2 CPC. Subsequently, application under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC for restoration of the suit was also dismissed and so also the revision against the said order filed before this court. Thus, the suit for declaration in respect of 16 out of the total 17 defendants has already been dismissed due to the lapses on the part of the petitioner. It is on this basis that Mr.Kuldip Sanwal, learned counsel Civil Revision No.13 of 2008 (O&M) : 3 : for respondent No.1 would point that the petitioner wants to file a fresh suit to over come this difficulty. I have considered the rival submissions made before me. The petitioner had not impleaded the proper parties for getting any effective relief. Subsequently, the suit property appears to have been sold and for any effective relief petitioner is also required to implead such subsequent vendees. The petitioner accordingly has moved this application seeking permission to withdraw the suit and to file a fresh one. No doubt, filing of fresh suit and impleading those defendants against whom the suit of the petitioner has already been dismissed can be put to some disadvantage or prejudice. However, their rights can still be protected. By filing a fresh suit, the petitioner cannot be allowed to have fresh cause to get his right re-determined through this suit. The defendants against whom the suit filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed would be entitled to raise all the defences that have accrued to them on account of dismissal of the previous suit for declaration qua them. If such an order would act as res judicata for any prayer that the petitioner would now make against them in the fresh suit if permitted would thus be available to them. The petitioner otherwise would be entitled to maintain the present suit against one defendant, who is respondent here and can also maintain such a suit against any subsequent vendees especially so when the objection has been taken in the suit that he has not impleaded necessary parties. This certainly is a defect for which the petitioner is entitled to seek permission to withdraw the suit earlier filed to enable him to file a fresh one. Accordingly, I am inclined to Civil Revision No.13 of 2008 (O&M) : 4 : grant this permission to the petitioner and thus would set- aside the impugned order to this an extent. The petitioner would have permission to withdraw the previous suit filed by him to file a fresh suit. It is made clear that all or any of the defendants, who have any rights accruing or available to them on account of the earlier suit having been dismissed qua them would be entitled to raise all such pleas and defences and the effect thereof would be taken into consideration by the court trying the fresh suit filed by the petitioner. The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. May 14, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE