IMPORTANT POINT
Impleadment of necessary party--Plaintiff being dominus litus may choose the person against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief and, however, there is an exception to this general rule that a proper or necessary party has to be impleaded.

Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral).- C.M.No.10872-CII of 2011

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Civil Revision No.2704 of 2011

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 24.2.2011, Annexure P1, and for allowing the application of the petitioners to implead them as party in Civil Suit No.817 dated 4.12.2008 pending for 31.3.2011 filed by respondent no.1-Sinder Kaur against respondents no.2 and 3 -defendants.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

3. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that Sinder Kaur-respondent no.1-plaintiff has succeeded property of her father Mehar Singh. She also succeeded the property of her uncle Sher Singh, brother of Mehar Singh, as he died unmarried and issueless. Mutation of inheritance of Sher Singh was sanctioned in favour of respondent-plaintiff-Sinder Kaur. Present respondents-defendants Swarn Singh and Sukhwinder Singh are not, in any way related to Sher Singh. However, they are claiming rights in the property left by Sher Singh on the basis of a Will, allegedly executed in their favour by Sher Singh. Respondent no.1-plaintiff had challenged the said Will being set up by respondents-defendants, Swarn Singh and Sukhwinder Singh in the suit and sought declaration of her title of property in dispute against them with a consequential relief of permanent injunction.

4. Present petitioners-applicants have filed a separate suit, Annexure P3, against respondent-plaintiff-Sinder Kaur for seeking declaration that, in fact, they are entitled to succeed to the property left by Mehar Singh and Sher Singh, deceased, sons of Mukand Singh, and Sinder Kaur is not the daughter of Mehar Singh as he also died issueless and, hence, she is having no right in the property of Mehar Singh and Sher Singh and, in fact they are entitled to inherit the property left by Mehar Singh and Sher Singh, as they are sons of brother of deceased Mukand Singh, namely, Santu Singh. However, in the suit filed by present petitioners, present respondents no.2 and 3-defendants were not made party and the Will set up by them is also not in dispute in that suit.

5. Application of petitioners for impleading them as party in the suit filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff-Sinder Kaur against respondents-defendants has been contested by respondent no.1-plaintiff Sinder Kaur on the plea that they are not necessary party in the suit as in this suit, only Will, allegedly set up by Swarn Singh and Sukhwinder Singh has been challenged by her. The application was dismissed by learned trial Court vide impugned order by observing as under:-

“5.Here in the present case, it is the specific case of the applicants that the applicants are the sons of Santu Singh, real brother of Mukand Singh and are thus entitled to the estate of said Mehar Singh etc. as natural heirs. The applicants have already filed a civil suit dated 21.3.2009 titled as Sarup Singh and others versus Sinder kaur regarding the subject matter. In the civil suit filed by the applicants, the defendant, who is the present plaintiff has filed the written statement in which she alleged the pendency of the present suit. She has also alleged in the written statement that Swaran Singh etc. forged the unregistered Will in their favour and a case of mutation between Sinder Kaur and said Swaran Singh etc. is pending in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Dhuri and Civil suit filed by Sinder Kaur against said Swaran Singh is also pending in this Court, but despite that written statement filed by respondent/Sinder Kaur on 12.8.2009, the applicants kept mum for a period of more than one year and did not move any application to implead themselves as party. Otherwise also, in the civil suit filed by the applicants, they have never challenged the un