IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 764 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 11, 2009 Jitender Pal Singh. … Petitioner Versus Surender Pal Singh and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. C.M. No. 3608-CII of 2009 Allowed, as prayed for. C.R. No. 764 of 2009 The defendant – petitioner is in revision against the impugned order 11.11.2008 (Annexure P/8) vide which the learned Trial Court allowed a plea under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, filed by the plaintiffs – respondents for impleading the Government of India (Ministry of Labour Employment and Rehabilitation, Department of Rehabilitation (Faridabad Unit) through Tehsildar Sales, Faridabad) as a party. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court was that the party to be impleaded was necessary for the effectual decision of the case. The learned counsel for the defendant - petitioner argues that there being no dispute between the C.R. No. 764 of 2009 parties about the fact that the house under reference did indeed come to be allotted to Pritam Singh (father of the defendant – petitioner and plaintiff – respondent No.2 – Kulbir Singh and grandfather of plaintiff – respondent no.1 Surinder Pal Singh), it could not be validly held by the learned Trial Court that the impleadment of Government of India was necessary for adjudication of the controversy at the trial. It is further argued that the impleadment of the Government of India would unnecessarily lead to inordinate delay in the disposal of the suit because it is a matter of common observation that it takes more than ordinary time to effect service upon a department in the Government of India. I find the plea on behalf of the defendant – petitioner to be denuded of merit. It is true that the averment made by the plaintiff – respondents (about the allotment of the house to Pritam Singh) was conceded by the defendant – petitioner in the pleadings to be correct. At the same time, it cannot be said that the Government of India is not a proper party, particularly when the pleadings of both the parties do not, at all, indicate the terms and conditions governing that allotment. In the present controversy between the two siblings and a nephew, there can no escape from the conclusion that the impleadment of Government of India would be proper in the circumstances of the case as it would enable the 2 C.R. No. 764 of 2009 Court to dispose of the controversy completely and effectually. In the context of the other plea putforward on behalf of the petitioner, it may be noticed that a valid plea cannot be rejected just because it may lead to delay in disposal of a trial. A judicial controversy has to be disposed of on merits of the case and not on account of the indicated consideration. Merits would out weigh any other consideration at the trial. The petition is without merit and is ordered to be dismissed. In view, however, of the fact that the civil suit under reference was filed in the year 2004, it is ordered that the learned Trial Court shall dispose of the suit itself within six months w.e.f. the next date of hearing fixed before it. The acknowledgement (of a copy of this order) issued by the concerned Judicial Officer shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court. Learned District Judge shall himself maintain a tab to ensure that the case is disposed of by afore-mentioned period. February 11, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3