In a suit for injunction simplicitor, which is a remedy in personam, the court should not expand the scope of the litigation by allowing the impleadment of third parties against whom no relief is specifically claimed.

JUDGMENT

The original petition has been filed challenging an order allowing an impleading application filed by respondents 3 to 6. The suit is for an injunction simplicitor filed by the petitioners against respondents 1 and 2, who are individuals. No relief is sought for against respondents 3 to 6 or against any others. The decree in the suit will not in any manner affect the rights of respondents 3 to 6. The claim of the respondents 3 to 6 is that the Masjid does not belong to the petitioners. For any relief against the petitioners it is always open to respondents 3 to 6 to file an independent suit. There is no necessity to get impleaded in the suit and defend an action which is actually initiated against respondents 1 and 2 alone. The court below has after narrating the contentions of both sides concluded stating that since the 1^st plaintiff is a Masjid numerous persons might be interested in the administration and hence the questions relating to who is in administration of the Masjid can only be decided after adducing evidence. I do not think it is necessary to go into such issues in a suit which is filed by the petitioners for an injunction simplicitor which is a remedy in personam. The scope of the suit need not be expanded by impleading the respondents 3 to 6.

The original petition is allowed. Ext.P4 order is set aside.

It is made clear that the result of the suit O.S.No.62 of 2025 will not in any manner affect respondents 3 to 6 and all rights available to respondents 3 to 6 to initiate action against the petitioners are also not gone into by this Court and it will be open to them for initiating action.