CR No.3878 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.3878 of 2007 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 16.03.2010 **** Yogesh Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. The Green Park Welfare Society (Regd.), Jalandhar and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.M.S. Bedi, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Gauri Bedi, Advocate for the respondents. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jalandhar whereby, an application filed, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’), by the petitioner for impleading him as one of the defendants, has been dismissed. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plantiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain defendants No.1 and 2 (respondents No.2 and 3 herein) from changing the nature of the park situated in Green Park Colony, Jalandhar measuring 65 yards x 30 yards and further to restrain them from CR No.3878 of 2007 (O&M) -2- making any encroachment or raising any sort of construction in the park left by Municipal Corporation defendant No.3 and further to restrain defendant No.3 from sanctioning any building plan over this park in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 or any other person for raising construction except in due course of law. The petitioner, who is alleged to be one of the owners of the property in dispute, which is a part of the scheme known as 81.6 Acre of Jalandhar Improvement Trust as per order dated 27.2.1990 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Jalandhar in Civil Suit No.501 of 1987 (Annexure P-2), filed an application for impleading him as a party to contest the suit but the learned trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that plaintiff is the dominus litus and the defendant/petitioner has no right to implead himself as a party as there is no threat to the plaintiff from him. In this case, notice of motion was issued on 7.8.2007. on 13.9.2007, following order was recorded “As per office report, notice issued to respondent No.1 has been duly served whereas notices issued to respondents No.2 and 3 have not been received back served or otherwise. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1. Proceded ex parte. Fresh notices be issued to respondents No.2 and 3 for 20.12.2007.” Respondent No.1, in this case, is the plaintiff, who has already been served but did not choose to contest the present revision petition. Therefore, he has been proceeded against ex parte. Basically, the contest is between the plaintiff and the applicant/petitioner, therefore, respondent No.4, being represented by Mr.M.S. Bedi, Sr. Advocate, states that he has no stakes in the suit as lis is between the CR No.3878 of 2007 (O&M) -3- private parties and he would have no objection if the petitioner is impleaded as defendant to contest the suit filed by the plaintiff. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. If there is an iota of an interest vested in a person, who is going to be effected, has a right to be arrayed as a party in civil litigation pending before the Court of law. It is shown by learned counsel for the petitioner from annexure P-2 that the property in dispute, which is part of the scheme known as 81.6 Acre of Jalandhar Improvement Trust, is also owned by the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, he is a necessary party to be impleaded as defendant because in the prayer clause, the plaintiff has not only sought to restrain defendants No.1 and 2, who are the real brothers of the petitioner, but has also prayed that any other person, which would include the respondent No.3 as well. In view of the aforesaid discussion, impugned order is set aside and the present revision petition is allowed, however, without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 16.03.2010 JUDGE vivek