The presence of a party whose presence is necessary to determine the real issue in controversy should be permitted in a civil suit. A suit for injunction can include parties whose presence would enable the court to adjudicate upon all matters in dispute, even if no relief is claimed against them.

JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J. - This petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns an order dated 13th February, 2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge, whereby the application, under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), preferred by the petitioner for being impleaded as a party in CS 52353/2016, has been dismissed.

2. CS 52353/2016 was filed by Respondent 1, Sangeeta aggarwal against Respondents 2 to 8. In order to avoid confusion, the parties would be referred to by their first names.

3. Sangeeta, in her suit, claimed to be 'the owner and in possession of the plot of land measuring 500 Sq. Yds. forming part of khasra no.235, 236, 237, 238 and 239, situated in Village Jaitpur, abadi, Tehsil Mehrauli, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044' (hereinafter 'the said property'). Sangeeta claimed to have purchased the suit property from one Bijender Singh under a duly notarized general power of attorney dated 23rd December, 1996 after paying the entire sale consideration to the said Bijender Singh, consequent whereon it was claimed that Bijender Singh had given physical possession of the property to Sangeeta. at the time possession when the suit property would have to be handed over to Sangeeta, according to her, Bijender Singh represented that the property was free from all encumbrances. Sangeeta claimed, thereafter, to be in settled possession of the suit property, to the exclusion of all other persons.

4. She also claims to have erected certain constructions on the suit property.

5. Respondents 2 to 8, according to the pliant, were residents of an adjoining locality, who had an 'evil eye' on the suit property and were making efforts to take possession thereof, and dispossess Sangeeta therefrom. Suffice it to state that, predicated on these factual assertions, Sangeeta, in her suit, sought a decree of permanent injunction in her favour and against Respondents 2 to 8, restraining them from interfering with the peaceful use, occupation and enjoyment, by Sangeeta, of the suit property.

6. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Civil Judge, the petitioner Rambir Singh moved an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, seeking impleadment in the suit. He asserted that his mother Ramshri Devi had purchased the suit property from Bijender Singh on 20th January, 1996 under a GPa, agreement to sell and purchase affidavit and receipt and that consequent to the demise of Ramshri Devi in 2003, he was the lawful owner and successor to her estate, which included the suit property. He also claimed to have been in possession of the suit property. He specifically denied, in his application, the claim to ownership and possession of the suit property, as advanced by Sangeeta in her suit.

7. In view of the assertions contained in the application, Rambir claimed that he was a necessary party in the proceedings and sought to be impleaded therein.

8. The learned Civil Judge has, however, by the impugned order dated 13th February, 2019, dismissed Rambir's application under Order I Rule 10. The reasoning of the learned Civil Judge is contained in the following passage from the impugned order:

'The Plaintiff case herein is for relief of injunction simplicitor, against the Defendants arraigned. The law is amply settled to the effect that a suit for injunction cannot be converted into a title suit. The onus to prove her rights qua the suit property, as claimed against the Defendants herein, is upon the Plaintiff, she being the dominus litas of her suit, cannot be imposed with the applicant as a defendant especially when no relief has been sought against him. To assert his own rights, given the background of the present suit, the recourse to file an independent suit has anyways been open to him.

accordingly, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC stands dismissed.'

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

9. Ms. anshoo Saxena, learned Counsel for Respondent 1, i.e. Sangeeta, the plaintiff in the suit, def