Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajaib Singh And Others vs Amarjit Kaur And Others on 3 September, 2013
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C. R. No. 5321 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No. 112
Case No. : C. R. No. 5321 of 2013
Date of Decision : Sept. 03, 2013
Ajaib Singh and others .... Petitioners
Vs.
Amarjit Kaur and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Ms. Naiya Gill, Advocate
for the petitioners.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to order dated 07.08.2013 (Annexure P-
6), passed by the trial court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioners for impleading them as party to the suit, which has been instituted by their brother proforma respondent no.6/plaintiff against respondents no. 1 to 5 as defendants.
Case of the plaintiff is that his father Amar Singh was in continuous possession of the suit land till his death in the year 1999. Since Monika 2013.09.05 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C. R. No. 5321 of 2013 2 after his death, plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff and other legal heirs of Amar Singh have acquired some legal rights in the suit land, but the defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land forcibly and illegally. The plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from doing so.
The petitioners, in their application (Annexure P-3), alleged that petitioners are in possession of the suit land after death of Amar Singh being his sons and in view of Will in their favour and plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. Accordingly, the petitioners claimed to be proper and necessary party to the suit.
The plaintiff, by filing reply (Annexure P-4), opposed the application and pleaded that he is in possession of the suit land.
Defendants, by filing reply (Annexure P-5), also opposed the application.
Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-6), has dismissed the application (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioners, who have, therefore, filed this revision petition to assail the said order.
I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioners reiterated that petitioners are in possession of the suit land, and therefore, they are necessary party to the Monika 2013.09.05 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C. R. No. 5321 of 2013 3 suit. However, this contention cannot be accepted. Even if petitioners are in possession of the suit land, with or without plaintiff, even then petitioners cannot be said to be proper or necessary party to the suit because the plaintiff is seeking injunction against the defendants, who allegedly threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land forcibly and illegally. If the petitioners want to assert their rights in the suit land to the exclusion of the plaintiff, the petitioners may do so in accordance with law, but they cannot be said to be proper or necessary party to the instant suit. It may be added that any decree, that may be passed in the suit, shall not be binding on the petitioners, if they are not party to the suit.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioners. The revision petition is thus meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
Sept. 03, 2013 ( L. N. MITTAL )
monika JUDGE
Monika
2013.09.05 10:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh