Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sudhir Mittal, J.
Satbir @ Madu & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Gram Panchayat & Ors. – Respondents
CR No. 1376 of 2020
Decided On : 07-03-2022
Impleadment - Dispute over Street Alignment - The court allowed the impleadment of party defendants in a suit for injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from diverting a public street through the plaintiffs' land, as there was a dispute regarding the alignment of the street and the applicants had an equal interest in the matter.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction against the Gram Panchayat to prevent the diversion of a public street through their land. An application for impleadment as party defendants was filed, alleging collusion between the Gram Panchayat and the plaintiffs, and claiming that the existing alignment of the street is correct.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the impleadment of the party defendants, stating that the applicants were necessary parties with an equal interest in the dispute over the street alignment.
Issues: Dispute over street alignment, Impleadment of party defendants
Ratio Decidendi: The court has the right to implead a necessary or proper party if the plaintiff does not intentionally implead them, and it was found that the applicants were necessary parties with an equal interest in the matter.
Final Decision: The revision petition was found to be without merit and was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Sudhir Mittal, J. (Oral) - The petitioners are the plaintiffs. They have filed a suit for injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from diverting a public street through their land. An application was filed during the pendency thereof for impleadment as party defendants. It was pleaded in the application that the Gram Panchayat and the plaintiffs are in collusion. In fact the existing alignment of the street is correct. The application has been allowed on the ground that there is a dispute regarding alignment and the applicants being also residents of the village have an equal interest in the matter.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs are the dominus litus and they cannot be forced to litigate against a party whom they do not want to implead.
3. The argument is misconceived. If a plaintiff does not intentionally implead a necessary or proper party, the Court has the right to implead the said party on its application. It has also been found that the applicants are necessaryparties and no error has been pointed out in the said finding. No other argument has been raised. The revision petition is without any merit and is dismissed.
The court has the right to implead a necessary or proper party if the plaintiff does not intentionally implead them, and necessary parties can be impleaded even if the plaintiffs do not want to litig....
A plaintiff in a civil suit is the dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead parties against their will unless their involvement is necessary for just adjudication.
Necessary parties with potential rights must be impleaded in injunction suits to ensure comprehensive adjudication.
A party may be impleaded if their presence is necessary for effective adjudication, as established by the principles governing such applications.
The absence of a party would only justify impleadment if it hinders the effective adjudication of the dispute, and the party seeking impleadment must be directly involved in the relief sought in the ....
In a suit for permanent injunction, parties can only be added if they are necessary for adjudication; plaintiffs hold the discretion to determine who is included without compulsion to add parties not....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
