Necessary parties with any right, title, or interest in the disputed property are required for granting/refusing the relief of injunction in a suit.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. - Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.2022 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Garhshankar (for short 'the trial Court') whereby the application moved by respondent No.l-Harjinder Singh (for short 'the applicant') under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a defendant in the Civil Suit preferred by the petitioners-plaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs') against respondents No.2 & 3-defendants No.l and 2 (for short 'defendants No.l & 2') and defendant No.3 (stated to have since expired) has been allowed, the plaintiffs have chosen to prefer the instant revision petition.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of this petition, are that the plaintiffs filed the above-said Civil Suit against defendants No.l & 2 as well as defendant No.3-Harmohinder Singh for seeking a decree for permanent injunction to restrain defendants No.l & 2from interfering in their lawful and peaceful possession over the suit properties, while averring that deceased-defendant No.3 was the father of plaintiff No.l and defendants No.l & 2 and he had inducted them (plaintiffs) as the permanent licensees in the said properties and defendants No.l & 2 had no concern with the same but they threatened to dispossess them from these properties forcibly and illegally. In their written-statement, defendants No.l & 2 asserted that their mother Resham Kaur had purchased the property, mentioned in the Head Note 'B' of the plaint, from one Avtar Singh and she, then, sold it to defendant No.l and her husband vide the Sale Deed dated 19.12.2005 and handed over its possession to them. Defendant No.l further sold the said property to Harjinder Singh, i.e the applicant, vide the Sale Deed dated 13.12.2017 and since then, he was in possession thereof as its owner. The above-named vendee moved an application for being impleaded as the defendant in the Civil Suit, while claiming himself to be in possession over this property as its owner by virtue of the said sale deed and the same has been allowed vide the impugned order.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs in the present revision petition and have also perused the file carefully.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs has contended that the plaintiffs have filed the Civil Suit for seeking the relief of permanent injunction against defendants No.l & 2 only and they, being the dominus litis, had every right to seek such relief against anyone as they deemed appropriate and they could not be compelled to implead any third person as the defendant in the Suit. To buttress his contentions, hehas placed reliance upon the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohamed Hussain Gulam AH Shariff vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 12273 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 35321 of 2016) Decided on 09.12.2016 and by this Court in Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association (Regd), Amritsar vs. Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association, Amritsar Civil Revision No.4015 of 1997 Decided on 07.07.1998; Nirmala Sharma and Others vs. Jasdish Lal and Others Civil Revision No.3548 of 2014 (O&M) Decided on 02.12.2014 and Charaniit Simh vs. HarjitKaur & Ors. Civil Revision No.830 of 2012 (O&M) Decided on 23.03.2015.

5. However, the above-raised contentions are devoid of any merit because the applicant claims his possession over the property detailed in Head Note 'B' of the plaint as its owner, on the basis of the above-said sale deed as stated to have been executed by defendant No.l in his favour. It being so, it is quite explicit that the adjudication of the dispute/controversy between the plaintiffs and defendants No.l & 2 qua the right, title or interest in this property, would directly affect the rights of the applicant, who claims to have stepped into the shoes of vendor--defendant No.l, in respect of the same. In these circumstances, the applicant would be a necessary party to the said Civil Sui