RITU TAGORE, J. (Oral)

1. This revision is directed against the order dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana in Civil Suit No.3585-2023 titled ‘Kunhal Kumar Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. and another’ whereby an application (Annexure P-4) under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (referred to as ‘the CPC’), filed by respondent No.3, has been allowed.

2. Considering the limited prayer made in this revision, notice to respondents deemed not necessary and is dispensed with.

3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner-plaintiff through his father/attorney filed a suit for permanent injunction (Annexure P-1) seeking to restrain the respondents-defendants, HDFC Bank Limited, Kidwai Nagar Branch, PUDA Complex, Near Field Ganj, Kidwai Nagar Ludhiana, (respondent No.1) and Manager, HDFC Bank (respondent No.2), from releasing half share of funds lying in account No.50100258539967 of late 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2024 16:44:30 :::

Sh. Balraj Kumar bearing customer ID No.118708190 to any third person except the plaintiff.

4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner in the aforementioned civil suit primarily averred that he is grandson of late Sh.Balraj Kumar, who passed away on 22.02.2023. He had executed a registered Will dated 18.12.2013 bearing vasika No.685 determining the succession to his estate. Late Sh. Balraj Kumar was having a bank account No.50100258539967 with HDFC Bank, Kidwai Nagar, Ludhiana.

According to the said Will, petitioner has succeeded to half share of total proceeds of the said account on the basis of the Will. Despite the said Will, the bank did not release the share in his favour, apprehending collusion of the bank officials with some third party and wrongful withdrawal of the funds on the basis of some forged and fabricated documents, necessitated the petitioner to file the aforesaid suit.

5. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner also sought the relief in the form of mandatory injunction, directing the defendants-Bank to release the petitioner’s share. Furthermore, learned counsel contends that during the pendency of the suit, the respondent No.3 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (Annexure P-4) alleging that deceased Balraj Kumar was his grand-father. He claimed to have been nominated in respect of the bank account in question and also propounded a Will dated 05.10.2020 allegedly executed by late Balraj Kumar his favour.

Additionally, he asserted that he is a Director in the company M/s York Knitwear Limited, also shared a joint locker with late Balraj Singh and a co-

licencor in the rental-agreement qua the property with Mani Ram Balwant Rai. In the application, he also claimed to have moved an application in the bank to release amount of the account of the depositor, late Balraj Kumar, 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2024 16:44:31 :::

but it was not released by the bank officials. Apart from the above, applicant also pleaded that the petitioner intentionally did not implead him as a party in the case and obtained an ex parte injunction against him.

6. The learned counsel submits that the learned trial Court wrongly allowed the application without considering the settled principle of law that plaintiff is a dominus litus of his case and cannot be compelled to add a party to his suit. Furthermore, no relief was sought against the respondent No.3-applicant. Learned counsel further submits that with the impleadment of respondent No.3, based on the allegations made by him, will change the nature of the suit altogether. It is thus, prayed that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the paper book.

8. Learned trial Court, in its order specifically concluded that the petitioner, through the civil suit in question, is not only seeking the relief of