C.R. No. 3681 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3681 of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.10.2009 1. Rajbir; 2. Dharambir; 3. Anil Kumar; all sons of Gordhan Dass son of Chandan Singh; 4. Bala Rani; 5. Neena Rani; both daughters of Gordhan Dass son of Chandan Singh; 6. Smt. Kartari Devi widow of Inder Singh son of Bhartu; 7. Telu Ram; 8. Subhash; 9. Rajesh; 10. Jagdish; all sons of Inder Singh son of Bhartu; 11. Smt. Bimal; 12. Smt. Nano; both daughters of Inder Singh son of Bhartu, residents of Aprahi Mohalla (Sainian Mohalla) Jind, Tehsil and District Jind. 13. Budh Ram son of Inder Singh son of Bhartu resident of Aprahi Mohalla, Jind. ... Revision-Petitioners Versus 1. Saini Kanya Uoch Vidyalaya, Jind (Regd.), through its President Sh. Kartar Singh Saini son of Sh. Sukh Lal Saini, resident of behind Manju Hotel, Jind. 2. Harphool Singh son of Lillu Ram Saini, Secretary of Saini Kanya Uoch Vidyalya, Jind (Regd.), resident of Saini Basti, adjoining Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalya, Jind. C.R. No. 3681 of 2009 2 3. Saini Shiksha Samiti Jind (Registered Society), through its President Sh. Kartar Singh Saini son of Sh. Sukh Lal Saini, resident of behind Manju Hotel, Jind. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate, for the revision-petitioners. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 1, exparte. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 09.03.09, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind, vide which, it dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10, and Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the amendment of plaint, and impleadment of defendant No. 3, as a party to the suit. 2. During the pendency of Civil Suit No. 571 of 16.10.04, for permanent injunction, an application under Order 1 Rule 10, and Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the amendment of plaint and impleadment of defendant No. 3, as a party, was filed, on the averments that, in the written statement, filed by the defendants, it was stated that, in fact, the land comprising rectangle C.R. No. 3681 of 2009 3 No. 123, killa No. 34/5/2, measuring 8 marlas, was the ownership of Saini Shiksha Samiti Jind (Regd). It was further stated, in the written statement, that defendant No. 1, was not the legal entity, and could not be sued. The plaintiffs, obtained a certified copy of the aforesaid registered society namely Saini Shiksha Samiti, Jind, from the concerned office, to know the actual position. The plaintiffs, thus, came to know, that Saini Shiksha Samiti, Jind (Registered Society), was a necessary party. Accordingly, the application, aforesaid, was moved. 3. This application, was contested by the defendants/respondents, wherein, it was pleaded, that the amendment, could not be allowed, because the issues, had already been framed, and the trial, had already started. It was further stated that the plaintiffs,had availed of three opportunities, to lead their evidence, but no evidence, was produced, by them. It was further stated that the application, had been filed, at a belated stage. It was further stated that the suit, was for permanent injunction, and no relief, had been claimed, against the defendant, which was sought to be impleaded. It was further stated that the relief of permanent injunction, being a personal remedy, Saini Shiksha Samiti, Jind (Registered Society), was not a necessary party. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the record of the case, the trial Court, dismissed the application, vide the order impugned. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone C.R. No. 3681 of 2009 4 through the record of the case, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, took up the same stand, as was projected, in the application, in which, the order impugned, was passed. In addition, it was submitted that, since a specific objection, was taken by the defendants, in the written statement, that Saini Shiksha Samiti, Jind (Registered Society), was the owner of the property, in dispute, it was a necessary party, in the absence, whereof, the controversy, could not be adjudicated upon completely and effectively. He further submitted that the Court below, was wrong, in dismissing the application. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the order impugned, being legal and valid, was liable to be upheld. He further submitted that, since the relief of permanent injunction, is a personal relief, Saini Shiksha Samiti, Jind (Registered Society), was not a necessary party. He further submitted that even no relief, against the said Society, was claimed, by the plaintiffs/revision- petitioners. He further submitted that the application, was filed, at a belated stage, just with a view to prolong the litigation. He further submitted that the trial Court, rightly dismissed the application. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. In the first instance, it may be stated here, that the mere fact, that the issues, were framed, in the suit, did not C.R. No. 3681 of 2009 5 mean, that the trial, had already commenced. The trial could be said to have commenced only after some evidence, had been recorded, by the Court, after framing the issues. Under these circumstances, the proviso, engrafted to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Since, in the written statement, a specific plea, was taken by the defendants/respondents, that Saini Shiksha Samiti, Jind (Registered Society), was the owner of the property, in dispute, it was a necessary party. With a view to obviate the objection, taken by the defendants, in the written statement, the application, in question, was moved, by the plaintiffs. Saini Shiksha Samiti, Jind (Registered Society), has, thus, got right and interest, in the property, in dispute. In the absence of the said Society, the controversy, between the parties, in the lis, could not be effectively and completely decided. At the time of deciding the application, in question, the Court, was not required to go deep into the merits of the case. The mere averments, contained in the application, reply, as also the written statement, were required to be taken into consideration. Even, one of the grounds of revision-petition, is to the effect, that the trial Court, failed to take into consideration, that the relief, had been claimed, by the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, against all the respondents, for permanent and mandatory injunction. It, therefore, could not be said, that no relief, against the proposed defendant, was sought. The order impugned, rendered by the Court below, suffers from illegality, material irregularity, and perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Article C.R. No. 3681 of 2009 6 227 of the Constitution of India, and is liable to be set aside. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is accepted. The order impugned, rendered by the Court below, is set aside, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/-, by the revision- petitioners, to the respondents. The parties, are directed to appear, in the trial Court, on 16.11.09, for further proceedings. 13.10.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE