IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-643 of 2021 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION : 17.03.2021

Birender

&Petitioner

Versus

Laxmi Narayan & Ors.

&Respondents

With

CR-652 of 2021 (O&M)

Birender

&Petitioner

Versus

Ajit & Ors.

&Respondents

CORAM : HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present :

Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner.

ARUN MONGA, J.

1.

Petitioner is defendant No.1 in the suit originally filed by

respondent Smt. Devi Sharma and Laxmi Narayan. The suit was filed for

permanent and mandatory injunction in the representative capacity for

causing public nuisance.

2.

It was alleged that defendants are wrongly shown owner of half

share of disputed land falling in Khewat No. 232, Khatoni No.319, Mustatil

No.21, Khasra No.96(0-12) situated at village Khandora, Tehsil Bawal,

District Rewari, on which a Dharamshala and temple are being constructed.

On the basis of wrong entries, the defendants are trying to take forcible

possession of the land in dispute, apart from changing its nature and claim

was that they be restrained from doing so.

SHALINI BHATIA

2021.04.12 12:58

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2.

During pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.1 Smt. Devi Sharma

vide application dated 25.01.2016 sought permission to withdraw the suit on

her behalf, which was granted by the trial Court on the same date.

3.

On 09.02.2016, petitioner/ defendant No.1 filed an application

for rejection of the plaint, inter alia, on the ground that plaintiff No.2 is

stranger to the suit property and hence suit filed by him is not maintainable.

Plaintiff No.2 objected to the application by filing a reply.

4.

Before the application, ibid, could be decided, on 23.09.2016,

an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by Ajit (respondent

No.1 in CR-652 of 2021) seeking his impleadment in the suit.

5.

Though, prayer was opposed, however, the learned trial Court

vide order dated 21.01.2021 permitted Ajit to become party-plaintiff in the

suit. Vide separate order of even date, the application filed by the petitioner

under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed. Aggrieved, petitioner Birender

has filed CR No. 643 of 2021 challenging dismissal of his application under

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. By filing CR No. 652 of 2021 order dated 21.01.2021

permitting Ajit to be impleaded as plaintiff, has been impugned by defendant

Birender.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Court below

has erred in allowing Ajit, who is son of plaintiff No.2 to be impleaded as

plaintiff in the suit. According to him, Ajit is neither necessary nor proper

party to the suit. He further submits that the trial Court ought not to have

permitted him to be impleaded as plaintiff. Once he is not permitted to be

pleaded as plaintiff, representative suit by solitary plaintiff No.2 is not

maintainable in view of provisions contained in Section 91(1)(b) of the CPC.

SHALINI BHATIA

2021.04.12 12:58

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

7.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on going

through the impugned orders, I am of the opinion that no interference is

warranted by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

8.

The impugned order dated 21.01.2021 passed by the trial Court

permitting Ajit to be impleaded as plaintiff, is based on the following

reasoning:-

<Heard the arguments of the parties. Perusal of case file

reveals that the plaintiffs had filed the present suit claiming that

the suit property which is comprised in mustatil No.21, Khasra

No.96(0-12) was given to the ancestors of the parties to the suit

by Prabhu Dayal in a gift subject to the condition that a

Dharamshala would be constructed on the suit property.

Accordingly, in the y