Punjab-Haryana High Court
Matadeen And Ors vs Birender Singh And Ors on 22 December, 2015
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
228.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM No.22649-CI of 2015 in/and
Civil Revision No.1722 of 2013
Date of decision: 22.12.2015
Matadeen and others ... Petitioners
versus
Birender Singh and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr.Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate,
for the applicant/petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate,
for respondents 2 to 6.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?No.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
CM No.22649-CI of 2015 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the revision petition is restored to file and with the consent of both parties, the same is taken up for hearing today itself. Civil Revision No.1722 of 2013
1. In an action for preventive injunction and mandatory injunction for restoration of a portion alleged to have been demolished by the Gram Panchayat in collusion with one Hari Singh SANJEEV KUMAR 2015.12.23 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Revision No.1722 of 2013 (O&M) -2- and Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar filed an application for impleadment stating that the portion demolished was a property of which he was the owner and the restoration cannot be made in a suit without impleading him. His own impleadment, according to him, would help the court to adjudicate on whether the plaintiff should have the benefit of mandatory injunction or not.
2. Normally in a suit for injunction, there is no dispute on the proposition that the plaintiff being a dominus litus will have the liberty to decide the person against whom he seeks for relief. However, exceptions would be in a situation where the plaintiff himself declares that the relief has become as necessary on account of the conduct of some persons, who are not in suit and such persons seek for impleading themselves to secure the adjudication in their presence. Even without the application brought by third party, the plaintiff, on his pleadings, ought to have impleaded the party now brought on record as proper party. In his absence, the plaintiff was literally bargaining for a fresh round of litigation and that could be quelled only by impleading the party who seeks for his impleadment.
3. The order passed is correct and would require no intervention. The revision petition is dismissed.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22.12.2015 sanjeev SANJEEV KUMAR 2015.12.23 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document