The Court emphasized that a party should only be impleaded in a suit if their involvement is necessary, and the plaintiff is the master of the suit and can decide whom to proceed against.

Judgment

Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.10.2022 (Annexure P-4) whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for being impleaded as a defendant in the suit has been dismissed, as also for challenging the order dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure P-5) whereby the interim injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 restraining the defendant-respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to demolish the encroachment except in due course of law till the filing of the written statement.

2. The case set up in the application (Annexure P-2) is that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has filed a suit by concealing facts and in connivance with the Municipal Committee, Mahendergarh. It is averred in the application that between the house of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and the petitioner herein, there is a 6 feet wide and almost 27-28 feet long street of the Municipal Committee which is a part of Street No.22 of the Municipal Committee and on the said street the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had made paved road/street by putting soil etc. and that he had encroached upon the property of the Municipal Committee. It is further the case set up that the petitioner had given a complaint to the Municipal Committee and after which action was taken and a notice under Section 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 was issued regarding removal/demolition of the illegal encroachment by the plaintiff-respondent No.1. It was further averred that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is a smart and clever person and that the suit has been filed in connivance with the Municipal Committee and hence it was necessary for the petitioner to be impleaded as a party. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a reply (Annexure P-3) and contested the application. The Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 13.10.2022 (Annexure P-4) held that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner herein and that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was challenging the notice issued under Section 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and the Court had to see whether the impugned notice was valid or not. It was further held that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor proper party and dismissed the application. Hence, the present civil revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is a necessary party in the present case as the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is a clever person and he in connivance with the Municipal Committee has filed the present suit and that the petitioner is the best person to assist the Court in the present case since the complaint was made by the petitioner herein and it is on the basis of the complaint that the notice under Section 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 has been issued. He has also placed reliance on Gurnam Singh & Ors. vs. Hakam Singh & Ors. [2020(2) PLR 406], Rajiv Goel vs. Sohan Lal Khosla [AIR 2010 Pb. 111] and Ranbir Singh vs. Municipal Corporation Rohtak & Ors. [2019(3) PLR 362].

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have contended that the order dated 13.10.2022 has rightly been passed as the petitioner is not a necessary party in the suit as the suit is only for declaration challenging the notice under Section 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 issued by the Municipal Committee. Moreover, a plaintiff is the master of his suit and is the best person to decide whom he wants to proceed against.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. In the present case the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had filed a suit for declaration against the defendant-respondent Nos.2 and 3 (Municipal Committee) to the effect that the notice issued under Section 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 was absolutely illegal, wrong and against the provisions of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. The petitioner filed an ap