305 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2590-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision: 04.02.2025 Malkit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Naib Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. S.S. Bhinder, Advocate and Mr. D.S. Bhinder, Advocate and Mr. S.S. Sekhon, Advocate and Ms. Indira, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala, vide which the Court had dismissed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC dated 05.09.2023 (Annexure P-7) moved by the petitioner for impleading him as a defendant in civil suit dated 12.07.2023 (Annexure P-5).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, respondent No.1 had filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining defendant No.4 i.e., Jagroop Singh (present respondent No.5)

from removing or transferring, in connivance with defendant Nos.1 to 3 i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 4 in the present revision petition, the motor electricity connection which was in the name of Bhager Singh. It is submitted that in the said suit, the petitioner had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as a party on the plea that the electricity connection was in the name of Bhager Singh son of Maha Singh and after his death, he was succeeded by his heirs i.e., Bhajan Singh, Jeet Singh and Ranjit Kaur. It was further averred that the electricity motor connection had been transferred by Ranjit Kaur and Bhajan Singh in favour of the plaintiff, Malkit Singh and Jagroop Singh and that the present suit had been filed in connivance with defendant No.4.

3. It is argued that the said electricity motor connection was installed in the share of the land which is in possession of the present petitioner and the same has been removed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 from the said land and has been put in the land of which the plaintiff is in possession. It is submitted that in case the petitioner is impleaded as a party, he would resist the claim of the plaintiff and would file a counter claim for declaration and also for mandatory injunction on the abovesaid plea. It is further submitted that the said application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been illegally rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 14.02.2024 and that the petitioner is a necessary party and thus, is required to be impleaded in the case for full and final adjudication of the case. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case bearing CR-2598-2021 titled as “Vishal Vs.

Pritam Lal Kataria and another”, decided on 09.11.2021

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, have opposed the present revision petition and have submitted that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed for the reasons detailed hereinafter.

6. It is a matter of settled law that the plaintiff being dominus litis has a right to institute the case against the party against whom he wishes to contest and a person who is neither a necessary party nor a proper party and against whom relief is not being claimed, is not to be made a party. It is further a matter of settled law that the judgment passed in the case, more so, in case of permanent injunction is only binding on the parties concerned and is not binding on the person who has not been made a party.

7. In the present ca