CW-4642/08-Kishori Lal &Anr.Vs.Civil Judge (JD),Anoopgarh, Sriganganagar & Ors. Judgment dt.18.7.08 1/2 S.B. CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.4642/2008 Kishori Lal & Anr. Vs. Civil Judge (JD), Anoopgarh, Sriganganagar & Ors. Date of order : 18th July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. S.L. Jain for the petitioner. --------- 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.6.2008 whereby the learned trial court allowed the application of the respondents No.3 to 7 to be impleaded as party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. In the suit, filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the Gram Panchayat claiming easementary rights in the form of access by way of a road to his agricultural fields. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impleadment of such parties would enlarge the scope of the suit and suit is likely to be converted into a suit for declaration which the petitioner-plaintiff has not filed and the petitioner-plaintiff cannot be compelled to array each and everyone as defendant who claims to have interest in the said public way and as a matter of fact, the Gram Panchayat, who is party defendant in the suit is duty bound to remove such encroachment on the public way. He relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. - (1992) 2 SCC 524 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the suit filed CW-4642/08-Kishori Lal &Anr.Vs.Civil Judge (JD),Anoopgarh, Sriganganagar & Ors. Judgment dt.18.7.08 2/2 by the dealer challenging the validity of a notice issued by the Municipal Council for demolition of certain structures raised by it on the premise of being unauthorised, the lessee of the premises was held to be not a necessary and proper party. 4. Having heard learned counsel and upon perusal of the impugned order and the judgment cited at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts in the judgment cited by the learned counsel inasmuch as the suit in the present case an easementary right of way is claimed by the plaintiff over which the applicant – newly added defendants claimed to have interest in the matter or possession and, therefore, the learned trial court in its discretion found that they are necessary and property parties and thus, impleaded them. 5. This order in the opinion of this Court does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution as the said parties cannot be said to be stranger to the lis involved in the suit. 6. The writ petition is therefore, found to be devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.41 babulal/-