The court held that a party who has an interest in the subject-matter of a suit and whose presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the suit is a necessary and proper party to the suit.

1. The present revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hansi dated 13-1-1997 whereby the learned trial Court had allowed the application under O. 1, R. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by Col. Michle. A. R. Skinner, and seven other for being impleaded as defendants in the suit.

2. Applicants before the trial Court and respondents 19 to 26 before this Court had filed the application for impleadment as defendants in the suit on the allegations that they are the owners of one building on Khasra No. 393 within the Abadi Deh Mauza Gari. The applicants had entered into an agreement to sell this property for a sale consideration of Rs. 5 lacs and actual possession thereafter was delivered to Dharambir. The applicants could not execute any sale deed in favour of Dharambir because some of the applicants were non-resident India and complete documentation could not be completed. In the year 1972, this building was taken by the police department and police station was functioning from the building since 18th February, 1973. When the building was vacated by the police authorities, possession thereof was handed over to the applicants in the year 1990. According to the applicants some of their articles are still lying in the building and Dharambir who is the prospective purchaser is in possession. On these facts, it is pleaded that they are necessary party to the present suit for permanent prohibitory injunction which has been filed by the plaintiffs without impleading them as party. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs in the suit i.e. Gram Panchayat Garhi. To oppose the application, it was stated that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. They had no interest in the subject-matter of the suit. The building is Dharamsala and is situated within Lal Dora. The Gram Panchayat claimed the possession over the building for the last 100 years and applicant cannot be impleaded as a party to the proceedings against the will of the plaintiffs.

3. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court had allowed the application and concluded that the present suit was for declaration and injunction and the Court was called upon to decide the question of title as well. As no prejudice was likely to be caused to the plaintiffs in the suit, the applicants were ordered to be so impleaded.Aggrieved from this order, the present revision petition has been filed by the Gram Panchayat Garhi.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length and keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is primarily concerned to see whether the applicants are necessary or proper parties to the proceedings. Whether they had any interest in the suit property and if their presence was necessary before the Court for complete and effective adjudication of the subject-matter of the suit.

5. It was neither disputed, in reply to the application nor before me that the police department was having its office in the property in dispute and when the same was vacated possession thereof handed over to the applicants in the year 1990. The disputed property is a part of the bigger property which are respectively owned by the parties.

6. During the course of hearing before this Court, learned counsel for the parties had placed on record the photo copies of the plaint and the written statement filed by the respective parties in the trial Court. In the plaint, it was the case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the property for the last more than 100 years and the property is adjacent to Khasra No. 496 which is admittedly the property of the applicants. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, it has been averred by the plaintiffs themselves that Col. Michle A. R. Skinner (applicant) and other are in the habit of grabbing the properties and these applicants are claiming possession and title to the property.

7. In the written statement filed on beh