The plaintiff has the discretion to decide whom to implead as a party in a suit for injunction based on the threat of dispossession.

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. (Oral) - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ropar vide which application Annexure P-3 filed by the present petitioner for impleading him as defendant in the suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6-plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') was dismissed.

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

3. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 6 -plaintiffs against respondent Nos. 7 to 12 -defendants for decree of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in their peaceful possession and also restraining them from selling, transferring, alienating or creating any sort of charge of the property duly described in the heading of the plaint.

4. During pendency of the present proceedings, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code was filed by the present petitioner for impleading him as party, which has been dismissed by learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 16.12.2010 (Annexure P-5) by observing as under:

“Arguments heard. After going through the arguments led on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent, it has come to my notice that the counsel for the applicant is stressing on the point that he is the owner and in possession of the property in dispute and he has referred to Jamabandi for the year 2005-06 in which there is entry regarding ownership and possession in favour of the applicant. On the basis of this ownership and possession, he is saying that he be also impleaded as party in the suit for permanent injunction, otherwise his rights will be affected. On the other hand counsel for the respondent argued that the plaintiff is owner and in possession of the suit property and it is just a suit for permanent injunction only he has to see whether he has to implead the applicant as a party or not. The plaintiff is the master of his suit and in the suit of permanent injunction. He has only to implead those parties as defendant from whom he is having apprehension of this possession of any kind. The counsel for the respondent states that he does not want to implead the applicant as the party because he is having no apprehension from the applicant in any way. Further the counsel for the respondent stated that if the applicant wants to show his ownership and possession over the suit property, he can file a separate suit but he cannot be impleaded as a party, to the present suit. After going through the arguments led on the behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent, I am of the view that it has been rightly stated by the counsel for the respondent that it is just a suit for permanent injunction and plaintiff is the master of his own suit and only he has to see whether he wants to implead the applicant as a party or not. If the applicant is having any right of ownership or possession over the suit property he can file a separate suit regarding the same but he cannot be impleaded as the party to the present suit. In the suit for permanent injunction the plaintiff is not having any apprehension or threatening from the side of the applicant. Hence, under these circumstances the present application is hereby dismissed. To come up on 4.1.2011 for evidence of the plaintiff.”

5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he had purchased 8 Kanals i.e. 160/617 share out of total land from respondent Nos. 7 to 12-defendants and that he is co-owner in possession of the said share out of the total land. It is further contended that respondent Nos.