IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No. 59 of 1999 Date of Decision: 15.5.2006 Bhagwan Singh Mehta …Appellant. Versus. Jai Singh Mehta .. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? For the Appellant(s): Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Naresh Kumar Sood. Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. A short question arises for decision in this appeal. Respondent Jai Singh Mehta had filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge, Rohru, against appellant Bhagwan Singh Mehta. Both the parties are real brothers. According to the plaintiff, in July, 1982 a family partition had taken place between the parties. Further according to the plaintiff, consequent to the said partition, the parties had been in possession of their respective shares. The plaintiff alleged that unfortunately the factum of partition was not reflected in the revenue record. The defendant is alleged to owe large amounts of 2 money to the Income Tax Department, H.P. Forest Corporation and H.P. Forest Department and other governmental agencies. Taking advantage of the fact that the family partition is not reflected in the revenue record the defendant was attempting to get the properties which had fallen to the shares of the plaintiff, attached and sold in such proceedings. Accordingly a suit was filed for declaration and consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. The defendant contested the suit. One of the objections raised by the defendant was that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on merits. The plaintiff filed an appeal. The learned lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the Government of India, Government of Himachal Pradesh Forest Department and H.P.State Forest Corporation are necessary parties to the suit since their rights were to be directly affected by the result of the suit. The learned lower appellate Court while exercising the powers under Order 1 rule 10(2) CPC impleaded the Government of India, Government of H.P. and H.P.Forest Corporation as necessary parties and set aside the judgment and decree and remanded the case to the trial Court for decision afresh after issuing notice to the aforesaid parties. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the present appeal has been filed in this Court. 3 The main point raised by Shri Ajay Kumar learned counsel for the appellant is that wholesale remand of the case is not necessary in this case. Even if it was felt that the aforesaid parties were necessary parties they should not have been impleaded and fresh issues should have been framed and evidence report should have been called for from the trial Court. I am not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. In this case the lower appellate court has held that non-impleadment of parties would directly affect the said departments and the corporation by the decision of the case. If they are necessary parties, the corollary is that they have a right to contest the suit from its inception and they cannot be bound by the evidence already on record. Therefore, the learned lower appellate Court was absolutely right in setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and directing denovo trial of the suit. However, before parting the appeal, I may observe that the newly added parties should be named as follows:- i) Union of India through the Secretary(Rev) to the Govt. of HP ii) State of H.P. through the Secretary(Forest) to the Govt. of H.P. and iii) H.P.Forest Corporation through its Managing Director. 4 The appeal is dismissed and the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 27th June, 2006. The plaintiff / respondent shall file his amended plaint on or before 27th June, 2006 before the learned trial Court. Thereafter the learned trial Court shall proceed to hear and decide the suit in accordance with law. Keeping in view the fact that the original suit was filed as far as back June, 1990, the same is directed to be disposed of expeditiously as possible as and in any event not later than 30th June, 2007. May 15, 2006. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. s.