IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1827 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 19, 2011. Rajeshwer Singh Sarao and another. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Jagdish Rai and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. H.S.Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.S.Thakur, Advocate for applicants-respondents No.4 and 5. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.13130-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.13131-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record Annexures R-5/1 to R-5/9. The same are taken on record subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. CR No.1827 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 01.03.2011 CR No.1827 of 2011 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Chandigarh in Civil Suit No.1997 of 2010 titled as ‘Rajeshwer Singh etc. v. Jagdish Rai etc.’ vide which application filed by respondents No.4 and 5 under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure for impleading them as party in the suit was allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, present petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Jagdish Rai and Raj Bala i.e. respondents No.1 and 2 from taking forcible possession of House No.2188, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh on the basis of sale deed dated 08.02.2010 allegedly executed in their favour by respondent No.3. It is further averred that petitioners-plaintiffs are real brothers and respondent No.3 is their nephew and that they are co-owners and in joint possession of the house in dispute and that the same has not been partitioned by metes and bounds and hence, it was contended that possession of every co-owner is joint with the other co-owners on the entire property. Suit was contested by respondents No.1 to 3 by filing separate written statements. However, during pendency of the suit respondents No.1 and 2 transferred property in dispute in favour of respondents No.4 and 5 and hence, respondents No.4 and 5 made an application before learned trial Court for impleading them as a party on the plea that they have acquired interest in the suit during pendency of the same. 2 CR No.1827 of 2011 It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners being dominus litis are masters of their case and that they are having danger for being dispossessed at the hands of respondents No.1 and 2 and not at the hands of respondents No.4 and 5. It is contended that they have not claimed any relief against respondents No.4 and 5 and hence, they are not the necessary parties to be impleaded in the suit. He has also placed reliance upon Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and others, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 867(1). On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for contesting respondents No.4 and 5 that they have also become co-owner of the property in dispute by virtue of sale deed executed in their favour by respondents No.1 and 2. It has also been contended that earlier respondents No.1 and 2 were in possession of the property in dispute and after its sale, respondents No.4 and 5 are in possession of the same as co-owner and that petitioners-plaintiffs are not in possession of any portion of the house in dispute. Law on the point is well settled that plaintiff is dominus litis. He is master of his own case and that he cannot be compelled to implead third party in a suit filed by him if he does not want to seek relief from him. The house in dispute has not been partitioned by metes and bounds. Hence, merely on the ground that respondents No.4 and 5 have become co-owner of the house in dispute by virtue of sale deed executed by respondents No.1 and 2 in their favour during pendency of the suit, it cannot be said that they have become necessary parties to be impleaded in the suit filed by the petitioners. 3 CR No.1827 of 2011 Learned trial Court has committed illegality and material irregularity in allowing the application filed by respondents No.4 and 5 merely on the ground that they have become subsequent vendees. Plaintiffs are not claiming any relief against them. Sale deed in their favour is also not under challenge in this case. It has been rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs that ownership of applicants is not in dispute in this case. They stepped into the shoes of vendors i.e. respondents No.1 and 2, who are contesting the suit. In view of the aforementioned facts, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 19, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 4