CR No. 322 of 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

221

*****

CR No. 322 of 2017

Date of Decision : 23.11.2022

Dharampal

...... Petitioner

Versus

Malkiat Singh and others

...... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present :

Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner

---

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.

1.

This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the order dated 13.12.2016 (Annexure P-6) passed

by the trial Court whereby the petitioner9s application under Order I Rule 10

CPC for being impleaded as a party defendant to the suit has been dismissed.

2.

Facts of the case in brief are, respondents no.1 and 2/plaintiffs

(hereinafter referred to as 8the plaintiffs9) filed a suit for permanent injunction

(Annexure P-1) restraining the defendants (proforma respondents no.3 to 5

herein) from interfering in their peaceful possession and forcibly dispossessing

them from the land. It has been pleaded in the suit that plaintiffs are in

possession of the suit land as gair marusi tenants, and the land was sold by

Iqbal Singh to Dhanpati and Dharampal, vide sale deed dated 13.4.2007.

However, out of the two vendees, Dhanpati and Dharampal, only Dhanpati was

impleaded as a defendant. On coming to know about the suit, the other vendee,

Dharampal (petitioner/applicant herein), filed an application under Order I Rule

10 CPC for being impleaded as a defendant in the suit being a necessary and

ASHWANI KUMAR

2022.12.06 14:58

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR No. 322 of 2017

2

proper party as he was co-owner to the extent of half share in the suit land

purchased by him vide sale deed dated 13.4.2007.

3.

The application was, however, rejected by the trial Court, vide

order dated 13.12.2016, on the ground that it was a suit for permanent

injunction and it was for the plaintiffs to see whom they wanted to implead as

party defendant(s). Since the plaintiffs had not pleaded that the applicant was

interfering in their possession in any manner, the latter cannot be said to be a

necessary party to the suit.

4.

A perusal of the plaint (Annexure P-1) shows that it is a case where

plaintiffs have sought permanent injunction as gair marusi tenants over the suit

land and protection against forcible dispossession therefrom. It is also pleaded

in para no.3 of the plaint that in 2007 the suit land was sold to Dhanpati and

Dharampal, vide sale deed dated 13.4.2007, who are defendants no.1 and 2

respectively. However, despite the averment the petitioner/applicant Dharampal

was not impleaded as defendant no.2. Instead, his wife Bimla Devi was

impleaded, who is not a co-sharer in the suit land.

5.

It shows the plaintiffs themselves consider the applicant/petitioner

as a necessary party and have so pleaded also. Undisputedly, the other co-sharer

who purchased the land in question along with applicant/petitioner, vide the

same sale deed dated 13.4.2007, has been impleaded as defendant no.1. Further,

as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, plaintiffs9 tenancy over the suit

land is being disputed by the applicant as well as the co-owner. There is only

one stray entry in the revenue record regarding the plaintiffs being gair marusi

tenant over the suit land which is incorrect. As a matter of fact, the

petitioner/applicant along with co-sharer/defendant no.1 is owner in possession

of the suit land. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the applicant/petitioner is a

ASHWANI KUMAR

2022.12.06 14:58

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR No. 322 of 2017

3

necessary party to the suit and the plaintiffs either intentionally or inadvertently

did not implead him as defendant.

6.

In view thereof, the instant revision petition is allowed. The order

passed by th