Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmala Sharma & Ors vs Jagdish Lal & Ors on 2 December, 2014
CR No.3548 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) CR No.3548 of 2014 (O&M).
Decided on:-2.12.2014.
Nirmala Sharma and others .........Petitioners.
Versus
Jagdish Lal and others .........Respondents.
(2) CR No.3570 of 2014 (O&M)
Santosh Sharma and others .........Petitioners.
Versus
Pandit Jagdish Kumar and others .........Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON.
Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.
Both these revision petitions have been taken up together for adjudication as the matter in controversy is the same in these petitions. For convenience and clarity, facts have been taken from CR No.3548 of 2014.
2. A suit for seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, interalia, from blocking the ingress and outgress of the plaintiffs to their house and to the Sheetla Mata Mandir located in front of the vacated site is pending adjudication before the Civil Judge (Senior YAG DUTT 2014.12.10 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR No.3548 of 2014 -2- Division), Patiala. The plaintiffs have impleaded two defendants.
3. The application was moved by the applicants, petitioners herein, under Order I Rule 10 CPC for making them a party in the said litigation but the same has been dismissed by the lower court coming to a firm finding of fact that since the suit is for seeking a remedy of permanent injunction and no right, title or interest is to be decided, the applicants, petitioners herein, have no stakes in the litigation to be adjudicated. Relevant portion of the impugned order for ready reference is reproduced as below:
"From a careful consideration of rival contentions, it is to be stated that the matter under consideration is regarding the injunction of the use of the suit property. Applicants are not in possession of the suit property so decision of the case will not affect the rights of the applicants as right of ownership is not in question in the present suit. As no cause of action has arisen to the applicants and as presence of applicants are not necessary for proper decision, so application in hand, is without merits and same is dismissed."
4. Learned counsel for the applicants, petitioners herein has not been able to convincingly put forth any arguments in repudiation of the findings of the lower court as to how in absence of the applicants-petitioners, their rights would be prejudiced when no relief has been claimed by the plaintiffs against them.
5. Counsel for the applicants-petitioners has sought support from Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal Versus Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay RCR (Rent) 644 (Supreme Court) and Gram Panchayat Garhi Versus Dharambir 1998(2) RCR (Civil) 98 (P&H) wherein it was held that if presence of a party is necessary for adjudication of the matter in controversy, then notwithstanding the fact of concept of dominus-litus operating in favour of the plaintiff, such person should be joined as a party for complete and effective adjudication of the matter in controversy.
6. In the present case, the applicants-petitioners are not necessary YAG DUTT 2014.12.10 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR No.3548 of 2014 -3- parties what to talk of they being an essential parties. The relief sought and rival claims of the parties to be adjudicated do not require presence of the applicants-petitioners in any way. Even otherwise, joining of the applicants, petitioners herein, is not going to help in effective and complete adjudication of the matter in controversy. Rather, it would usher in more confusion and complexities which otherwise at present are totally alien to the matter in litigation.
7. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances as mentioned earlier, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was rightly dismissed by the lower court vide impugned order dated 1.4.2014 (Annexure P-4). The impugned order is well-written and well-explained taking into account all dimensions of the suit.
8. Sequelly, no ground to interfere with the impugned orders is made out and affirming the same, both these petitions, being devoid of any merit, are dismissed.
(Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon) Judge December 02, 2014 'Yag Dutt'
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes YAG DUTT 2014.12.10 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document