Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh vs Jagdish Singh And Others on 17 August, 2012
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 3544 of 2011
Date of decision: August 17, 2012
Ranjit Singh
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Jagdish Singh and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.
A.N. Jindal, J
Assailed in this petition is the order dated 8.2.2011 passed by
the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Batala, declining the application filed by
Ranjit Singh, adjoining owner of the site in dispute, for impleading him as
party-defendant to contest the suit
A suit has been preferred against Gram Panchayat and Gopal
Singh, but Ranjit Singh, who is adjoining owner had preferred and
application for his impleadment as party-defendant stating that he is the
adjoining owner of the site in dispute. The plaintiff has no right, title or
interest in the suit property and they having colluded with the Gram
Panchayat, have encroached upon the suit property in order to injure his
right in the property in dispute. The plaintiff has merged the passage in the
property and has started claiming the same to be his own, therefore, in order
to assist the court and to protect his rights of ingress and egress through the
said passage, he being a necessary party requires his impleadment as
defendant in order to contest the suit.
The trial court declined the application.
Arguments heard.
The person who has adjoining house and has a door in the street
which is being encroached upon, certainly would suffer an irreparable loss
and injury if the plaintiffs makes any encroachment over the said street. No
Civil Revision No. 3544 of 2011 -2-
***
doubt, the streets and drains vests in the Gram Panchayat, yet, the petitioner being the resident of village and living adjoining to the site in dispute can protect his rights against the illegal encroachment over his right to have access and use such street. The street once left by an owner for use of the plot holders out of his land would also amount to abandonment of his right for all times to come. The street was left by him with in intention to sell his property by plots and to provide right to the plot holders to have access and to use the same. Thus infringement of their right over such streets would lies in it than to have remedy against such infringement by contesting the suit. This Court while relying upon the judgment delivered in cases Nand Lal Nandwani v. Bhagwan Dass, 1986 P.L.J. 223 and Gram Panchayat Garhi v. Dharambir, 1998 (2) RCR (Civil) 98 (P&H), observed in case Smt. Shayama Jain vs. Saavitri Devi and others, 2002 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 645, as under :-
"6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perusing the record with their assistance, I am of the considered opinion that this revision petition deserves to succeed and the impugned order dated 24.8.2000 passed by the Civil Judge is liable to be set aside. The averments made in the application clearly establish the interest of the applicant- petitioner inasmuch as it has been averred that she has purchased the land and constructed the house by leaving the area of 200 square yards for passage. She has further asserted that when the plaintiff- respondent No.1 constructed the staircase illegally obstructing the free access to the house of the applicant- petitioner, she has to file a complaint on 27.2.2000 to the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul and the notice dated 28.2.2000 issued to plaintiff respondent No.1 is on the basis of her complaint. Therefore, the applicant- petitioner is a necessary party and it has to be held that the order passed by the Civil Judge suffers from material Civil Revision No. 3544 of 2011 -3- *** irregularity and illegality. Both the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel substantially support his submission because in Nand Lal Nandwani's case (supra), this Court has taken the view that in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Committee from demolishing the plaintiff's wall on the disputed land, the presence of the person who had his house situated opposite just across the street was considered necessary and he was held to be a person interested within the meaning of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code............."
In Gram Panchayat Garhi's case (supra), the principle of dominus litus has not been held to be absolute as the court observed as under :-
"In view of the above discussions, it is clear that the plaintiff is dominus litus of the suit is not an absolute rule. The law intends and has actually provided for exceptions. In the present case, if the applicants are not impleaded as parties specially when they satisfy the condition aforestated would only lead to multiplicity of litigation which is neither the object nor legislative intent of any procedural or substantive law."
The petitioner has the house adjoining the disputed site. The plaintiff claims himself to be owner of the said site without any document whereas according to the petitioner, it was part of the street to be used by him and other villagers and if he apprehends that the street is encroached upon in collusion with the gram panchayat, then certainly the petitioner would suffer an irreparable injury and it would give rise to multiplicity of litigation, therefore, in order to safeguard the rights of the petitioners and to provide him opportunity to contest the nature and ownership of the property, and the rights of the petitioner. There is no harm to permit him to be Civil Revision No. 3544 of 2011 -4- *** impleaded as party defendant so that it may enable the court to pass correct judgment and decide the rights of the parties after proper appreciation of rival contentions and the evidence led in support thereof.
It is also one of the cardinal principle of law that if the party interested would be directly effected as a result of culmination of such litigation into a decree, it would directly effect his rights, then such party is a necessary to be impleaded as defendant.
Resultantly, this revision petition is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be impleaded as party- defendant in the suit. The plaintiff would file correct memo of parties.
August 17, 2012 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge