The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of impleading a party whose presence is essential for the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon all matters and issues involved in the suit, as per the principles of CPC 1908, Order I Rule 10.

KULDIP SINGH J.

1. Impugned in present second appeal against the order is judgment dated 12.4.2004, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide which suit was remanded back to trial Court for fresh decision after allowing the application of Gurpreet Singh son of Paramjit Singh, who was made party on the ground that he is necessary and proper party and whose presence is necessary for complete and just adjudication of the suit. The trial Court was directed to grant opportunity to Gurpreet Singh to file written statement and lead evidence.

2. Brief facts of case are that Walaiti Ram (present appellant) filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against Jawahar Lal Lekhi, Bhushan and Om Parkash Uppal, all residents of Mohalla Prem Nagar, Ludhiana, for restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession and dispossessing him from disputed property, description of which is reproduced as under :-

'North : Khosal Sahib

South : Tarsem Lal Jain

East : Sardari Lal Meera Devi

West : Street

Measuring 156-8/9 sq. yds. comprised in khasra No. 5683/4563/886 to 889, 2349/891, 893, 2350/891-893, Khata No. 1908/2354/1, as per jamabandi for the year 1989-90, situated in the revenue estate of village Mahal Bhagat, HB No. 164, Tehsil and Distt. Ludhiana, known as Mohalla Prem Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana. .......'

3. Plaintiff claims that he has purchased the suit land by way of sale deed No. 14205 dated 17.7.1995. Mutation No. 20795 has already been sanctioned. Defendants are threatening to dispossess him from suit the property.

4. Defendants on the other hand claim that Maya Devi was owner of plot No. 9, measuring 156.23 sq. yds. The sale deed claimed by plaintiff is forged and fabricated document. Plaintiff has no concern with the suit property. The suit property was left by Manna Singh for welfare of inhabitants of Mohalla Prem Nagar. Maya Devi had already sold the suit property to Sarwan Ram and Sarwan Ram sold same to Tarsem Lal and his wife, vide sale deed dated 17.8.1987. Tarsem Lal is residing in same property after constructing a double storey building. Plaintiff wants to grab plot No. 8 on the basis of forged and fabricated sale deed allegedly to have been executed by Maya Devi. Maya Devi was not owner of plot measuring 156.8/9 sq. yds. after 25.5.1962.

5. From the pleadings, following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction the prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands ? OPD

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties ? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs have played a fraud with the Court ? OPD

6. Relief.

6. The trial Court recorded the finding that plaintiff has proved his possession on the basis of sale deed and revenue record and accordingly granted injunction.

7. One of defendants, namely, Bhushan alias Kulbhushan filed the appeal against said judgment before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. Pending the appeal, one Gurpreet Singh son of Paramjit Singh filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, 1908 for impleading him as a party. In the application, he claimed that none of the parties have got any concern with the property bearing khasra No. 5683/4563/886 to 889, 2349/891, 893, 2350/291, 893, measuring 1 kanal 1 marla, situated at Mahal Bhagat. It was stated that property was originally owned by Manna Singh son of Dhanna Ram and some area out of said khasra number was earlier sold to Maya Devi, who had further sold same after getting the mutation sanctioned. Unfortunately, despite said sale, after a gap of long time, she again tried to alienate the property by getting the mutation sanctioned twice. Said second mutation has been revoked by Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana and property has been shown as ownership of application. Since applicant is owner in possession, therefore, he is necessary party. The app