Point of Law: Plaintiff has dominus litis for impleading or non-impleading another party as defendant and in case, there is non-joinder of necessary party, plaintiff has to suffer for that.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. Applicant Arjun Grover has filed this application for impleading him as defendant on the ground that he, being co-sharer, is one of owners of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 218, 219, 220, 221, 223 and 225 situated in mauja Majhet, Tehsil and District Shimla, is necessary party to suit but he has not been arrayed by the plaintiff deliberately.

2. Defendant No. 2 Bimla Grover is wife of applicant Arjun Dev Grover.

3. Defendant No. 3 is Municipal Corporation of Shimla.

4. Plaintiff has filed the suit for possession of land measuring 0-1-10 bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. 547/365/1 (old), Khasra No. 218 (new) situated in village Majthai, Tehsil and District Shimla by demolishing the construction thereon raised by defendant No. 1 K.R. Verma.

5. Suit has also been filed for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering in construction being raised by plaintiff over the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 218 and 219 (new), 548/365/1 (old).

6. Prayer for any other relief, as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, has also been made.

7. Suit was filed in July 2014. Written statements thereto were also filed. Defendant No. 2 wife of applicant has filed the written statement on 10th November, 2014 claiming therein that she, along with her husband, has easmentary right over the path existing on Khasra No. 218 with further plea that plaintiff has concealed true and material facts regarding factual status of Khasra Nos. 223 and 220 as Khasra No. 223 is subject matter of contractual rights of her husband who has been put in possession by one Rajender Singh in furtherance to part performance of said agreement. Various other pleas with respect to adjoining land have been taken in written statement filed by defendant No. 2 with specific plea that plaintiff and her husband Arjun Grover have raised construction on Khasra Nos. 222 and 223 which was never objected by any person and plaintiff is also bound by terms and conditions of agreement and act done by Rajender Singh from whom defendant No. 2 has derived the title when share was transferred and by that time, construction had already been completed on Khasra No. 223. It has been claimed in written statement by defendant No. 2 that Khasra No. 218 is recorded as common passage which is only available passage to have ingress and egress to the building of defendant No. 2 which is being enjoyed for the last more than 25 years without obstruction, hindrance and interruption.

8. Main ground claimed for impleading the applicant as defendant is that plaintiff is claiming his right on the basis of revenue entry attested vide mutation No. 606, which, according to applicant, has been obtained by playing fraud with applicant on the basis of alleged partition proceedings wherein applicant was never associated and he had also not signed any partition agreement dated 1.9.2018, on the basis of which mutation No. 606 had been attested.

9. According to applicant, immediately after knowing about the attestation of mutation, applicant inquired the record in the office of Sub Registrar, Shimla (Rural) and obtained the certified copy of partition agreement and copy of mutation No. 606 dated 1.9.2018 and noticed that his signatures (applicant) had been forged whereupon he submitted a written complaint to Tehsildar Shimla on 23.07.2019 and he also submitted complaint to the Principal Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of H.P. who forwarded the same to Deputy Commissioner, Shimla vide communication dated 3.9.2019. Further that applicant also reported the matter to the Director General Vigilance vide communication dated 23.7.2019 and on the basis of complaint of applicant, FIR No. 186 of 2019 dated 17.08.2019 has been registered in Police Station Boileuganj Shimla. It has been submitted that in case right claimed by plaintiff on the basis of Mutation No. 606 is given legal protection then valuable right of applicant and his wi