Bakhshish Kaur, J. - An application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by Krishan Lal-petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rohtak, on 11.5.2001. Hence, this revision.

2. I have heard Mr. T.S. Dhindsa. learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.L. Malhotra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. O.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate for respondent No. 2.

3. The parties to the suit and the present petitioner are real brothers. They are the sons of Hari Chand. Rajinder Kumar-plaintiff (now respondent) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining Vishal Dhingra from interfering and excluding the joint possession in the premises and also restraining him from making any deal on behalf of the firm without his permission. Krishan Lal filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for his impleadment on the ground that he is owner and in joint possession of the entire machinery and in the business of Vishal Dhingra, the plaintiff is also owner and in joint possession of 1/4th share of the factory known as M/s Vishal Auto Industries, Hissar Road, Rohtak, and this fact is obviously mentioned in the suit titled as "Vishal Dhingra v. Hari Chand Dhingra and others" pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Senor Division, Rohtak. In addition to this property, the applicant is also owner and in joint possession of the entire property which is the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, he is necessary party for the just decision of the case, he being the owner and in joint possession thereof.

4. The reasoning given by the trial Court in dismissing the application is two fold. Firstly, an application for appointment of Receiver was decided on 6.3.2000. A day earlier to the decision of this application, applicant was present but no such application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed. Secondly, the parties have a right to compromise and even costs of machinery and material have been assessed. It is, therefore, clear that the applicant wants to extract money from his two brothers. Thus, it was observed that the applicant is not a necessary party and that the suit can be adjudicated upon in his absence.

5. Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the family of Hari Chand Dhingra comprises of his wife and son Rajinder Kumar, Krishan Lal and Vishal Dhingra. They are the members of Hindu undivided family (for short HUF) of Hari Chand Dhingra and he is the karta of the properties owned by the family and the business which is being run by the family as a whole. In the present case filed by Rajinder Kumar-plaintiff, though he is claiming injunction and appointment of Receiver, yet Vishal Dhingra-defendant has raised a specific plea in the written statement that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. He had also raised a plea that all the properties and business referred to in the land are joint. The parties had not separated from HUF and from their father. Copy of the written statement is Annexure P-2.

6. The defendant who was contesting the suit had taken up a specific plea that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and cause of action would therefore imply that the other members of the HUF were also necessary parties to the suit. The petitioner who is one of the members of the HUF and brother of the parties, is staking his claim in the property in question. Can he be kept away from contesting the suit ? Is not the necessary and proper party to the suit ? Whether any effective decree can be passed in the absence of a proper and necessary party particularly in the case in hand where the parties to the suit had allegedly entered into a compromise ?

7. It is a fact that Vishal Dhingra-defendant has also filed a suit for possession by partition of HUF against his father Hari Chand Dhingra and brothers Rajinder Kumar and Krishan Lal-present applicant-petitioner and Smt. Lajwanti, his mother. The details of the property owned by joint