Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 1358
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Subash Kundra @ Katty - Appellant
Versus
Kiran Bhalla & Ors. - Respondents
CR-3579 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 05-12-2022
Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2. Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for respondent no.3
The court emphasized the power to implead necessary and proper parties to a pending suit, highlighting that the rule of dominus litis is not absolute.
Headnote:
Impleadment - Society Registration - The court upheld the trial court's decision to permit the impleadment of a new party in a suit involving the registration of a society, emphasizing the power to implead necessary and proper parties to a pending suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that members of a registered society were not registered as per the amended rules and regulations, and sought a consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff impleaded his own brother as the President of the Society. During the pendency of the suit, another individual filed an application for impleadment as the Vice President of the Society.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's decision to permit the impleadment of the new party was not perverse, emphasizing the power to implead necessary and proper parties to a pending suit. The court dismissed the revision petition, stating that there was no ground to interfere with the trial court's decision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the impleadment of the new party in the suit was appropriate, considering the power of the court to implead necessary and proper parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the rule of dominus litis is not an absolute rule and that in the facts of the case, the court can order impleadment of necessary and proper parties to the pending suit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and directed the trial court to decide the case independently without being influenced by the observations made by the higher court.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - Assailing the correctness of the order dated 15.02.2019, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The trial Court has permitted Sh. Kiran Bhalla, who claims to be the Vice President of the Ram Lila Committee to be impleaded as the party defendant.
3. Relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
4. The petitioner filed a suit for grant of decree of declaration that members of the Ram Lila Committee (registered) Society have not been registered as per the amended rules and regulations of the Committee with a consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff impleaded his own brother Sh. Sanjeev Kundra as the President of the Society. During the pendency of the suit, Sh. Kiran Bhalla filed an application for impleadment on the ground that the tenure of Sh. Sanjeev Kundra came to an end in June, 2018 and thereafter, he is acting as the Vice President of the Society. The trial court has permitted the impleadment of Sh. Kiran Bhalla as defendant no.3, however, he refused to delete the name of Sh. Sanjeev Kundra.
5. This Bench has heard the learned counsels representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.
6. The learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner being dominus litis is entitled to file and continue with the suit in the manner he likes and the impleadment of Sh. Kiran Bhalla in his suit is inappropriate. He submits that there is no evidence that Sh. Kiran Bhalla is the Vice President of the Society.
7. On the other hand, Sh. Vijay Rana, learned advocate, appearing for respondent no.3-Sh. Sanjeev Kundra supports the contention of the learned counsel representing the petitioner.
8. Sh. Prateek Gupta, representing respondent no.1 and 2 submits that the two brothers have collusively filed the suit in order to take over the affairs of a registered society which is working for the public good.
9. This court has considered the submissions and analyzed the arguments of the learned counsels representing the parties.
10. The suit is pending before the trial court. The court has only permitted the impleadment of Sh. Kiran Bhalla, as defendant no.3. Sh. Kiran Bhalla will have to prove how he is interested in the said litigation. However, from the facts of the case, the court has exercised the power which is not perverse. The rule of dominus litis is not an absolute rule. In the facts of the case the Court can order impleadment of necessary and proper parties to the pending suit.
11. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.
12. Dismissed.
13. However, the trial court would decide the case independently without being influenced by the observations made by this court while passing this order.
14. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
