IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 276 of 2001. Judgement reserved on: 8.10.2009. Date of decision: 23.11.2009. Hans Raj ….. Petitioner. Vs. Parwati Devi & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mrs. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondents : Pt. Om Parkash, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This revision is directed against the order dated 23.5.2001 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class (II), Palampur in Civil Suit No. 194/95 permitting Smt. Parwati Devi to be impleaded as defendant in the suit. The prayer in the application regarding Sections 10, 11 and 151 CPC was ordered to be considered at later stage of the case. 2. The other relevant facts are that Hans Raj petitioner has filed a suit for declaration against respondents No. 2 to 8 for rectification of sale deed. In the suit, applications, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, were filed by Guler Chand husband of respondent No.1 and Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… one Jondu Ram for impleading them as parties in the suit. The learned Sub Judge on 5.6.1998 dismissed the applications of Guler Chand and Jondu Ram by a common order. It was held that Guler Chand was neither a necessary nor a proper party in the suit. Guler Chand did not challenge the order dated 5.6.1998. Jondu Ram, however, filed Civil Revision Petition No. 377 of 1998 in this court against the order dated 5.6.1998, which was dismissed on 24.3.1999. 3. The petitioner has also stated in the revision petition that some litigation between petitioner and Guler Chand was decided by the Supreme Court on 6.5.1999 vide which the question of title was left open. The other litigation is also pending between petitioner and respondent No. 1 in the court of Sub Judge, Palampur as well as before the Divisional Commissioner, but such litigation has no bearing with respect to the relief claimed in the suit for rectification of the sale deed. 4. The specific case of the petitioner is that on 28.8.2000, respondent No. 1 had filed another application, under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Sections 10, 151 CPC, for impleading her as party in the suit and for staying further proceedings in the suit. This application was ,opposed ,by ,the petitioner on the grounds of maintainability, res-judicata. It was stated in the reply that Supreme Court had left the question of title open. The rights of respondent No. 1 were not going to be effected in any manner by any decision in the present suit. The learned Sub Judge on 23.5.2001 has allowed the application of respondent No. 1 to a limited extent and respondent No. 1 has been ordered to be impleaded as defendant in the suit. …3… The order dated 23.5.2001 has been assailed on the grounds that same is illegal, void and has been passed in contravention of principles of res-judicata, inasmuch as, earlier application filed by predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 1 was dismissed by learned Sub Judge on 5.6.1998 and the decision dated 5.6.1998 has become res-judicata. The impugned order has also been assailed on the ground that learned Sub Judge has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in him by law. The learned Sub Judge has ignored the decision of the Supreme Court and the order dated 24.3.1999 of this court in Civil Revision No. 377 of 1998. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the grounds taken in the revision petition. On the contrary, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that application of respondent No. 1 is based upon subsequent events after the decision dated 6.5.1999 of the Supreme Court. He has supported the impugned order. 6. It is common case of the parties that earlier application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by Guler Chand husband of respondent No. 1 for impleading him as defendant in the suit was dismissed by learned Sub Judge on 5.6.1998. The order dated 5.6.1998 was not assailed by Guler Chand. However, Jondu Ram filed Civil Revision No. 377 of 1998 against the order dated 5.6.1998, but Civil Revision No. 377 of 1998 was also dismissed by this court on 24.3.1999. Thus the order dated 5.6.1998 passed by learned Sub Judge had attained finality. …4… 7. The short question involved in the present revision petition is whether the order dated 5.6.1998 passed by learned Sub Judge dismissing the application of Guler Chand for impleadment as defendant in the suit is a bar to the present application filed by respondent No.1 for impleading her as defendant in the suit. The petitioner Hans Raj had filed Civil Suit No. 99 of 1993 against Guler Chand, which was decreed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class (II), Palampur on 22.3.1994 and a decree for possession and for Rs.3960/- as arrears of rent was passed against Guler Chand. The subject matter of that suit consisted of a residential house built upon khasra No. 958. Hans Raj took stand in that suit that defendant was inducted as tenant in the house. Guler Chand denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. He took the stand that he was in possession of the house in dispute alongwith adjoining land comprising of khasra No. 955 and 959 as owner since prior to 1970. 8. The learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala allowed Civil Appeal No. 90-P/XIII/1994 on 15.5.1995 and set aside the judgement and decree dated 22.3.1994 passed by learned Sub Judge and dismissed the suit. The High Court set-aside the judgement and decree passed by learned District Judge and affirmed the decree passed by the trial court. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court, where on 6.5.1999 the judgement and decree passed by the High Court was set-aside and judgement and decree passed by District Judge was restored. The Supreme Court, however, did not decide the issue qua title of plaintiff (Hans Raj) with respect to the suit property in that suit whether it forms part of sale …5… deed dated 15.12.1980 under which the plaintiff claimed title to the suit property in that suit and this issue was left open. The present suit has been filed by the petitioner for declaration etc. for rectification of sale deed qua khasra Nos. 924, 925, 957, 930, 931, 955, 958 and 959. 9. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 in the application, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, that after the judgement of the Supreme Court regarding khasra No. 958 and judgement dated 20.6.2000 of learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Palampur pertaining to khasra No. 955, 959 and 958 the interest of respondent No. 1 has been well established on the suit land. The learned Sub Judge has recorded a finding that controversy involved in the present suit cannot be adjudicated in an effective manner without impleading Parwati Devi as defendant in the present suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out a case how the finding recorded by the learned Sub Judge for impleading respondent No. 1 is hit by the principle of res-judicata and how it is without jurisdiction. The earlier application of Guler Chand husband of respondent No. 1, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, was dismissed on 5.6.1998. The Supreme Court vide judgement dated 6.5.1999 has left the question of title regarding the property claimed by Hans Raj open. The respondent No. 1 is claiming her title on a part of suit property. Only the impleadment of respondent No. 1 in the suit has been allowed. This will effectively decide the controversy between the parties. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned order, and, therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on 7.12.2009. …6… The Registry is directed to remit the record of the trial court immediately so as to reach well before the date fixed. November 23, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.