Delhi District Court
Harpal Singh vs Dda & Ors on 30 April, 2014
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE5, CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 121/13
Harpal Singh
.....Plaintiff
Versus
DDA & Ors.
......Defendant
ORDER RESERVED ON:25/04/2014
DATE OF ORDER:30/04/2014
ORDER
1. By this order I shall dispose off the application of Sh. Jagpal Singh, Dharm Pal Singh and Damodar Singh under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by which they want to be impleaded as plaintiffs in the suit. It is not disputed that they are also coowners of the property which is affected by the demarcation report dated 31.03.1997 and the order no. F.SDM/LAC/MISC./97 whereby new Tatima has been framed.
2. Plaintiff has opposed the application on the ground that there is inordinate delay in moving this application and the applicants Suit No. 121/13 Page1/3 -2- cannot join the plaintiff at this stage. It is also stated in the reply of the plaintiff that the applicants had not given any notice under Section 53 (b) of DDA Act to the defendant and therefore on this ground also they cannot be permitted to join the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff also submitted that adding the applicants at this stage will cause further delay. Ld. Counsel for the applicants submitted that vide order dt. 18.05.05 some other co owners namely Sh. Sheo Pal, Des Pal, Krishan Pal and Sheesh Pal all sons of Sh. Pratap Singh were impleaded as defendants and the applicants herein are on similar footing. Ld. Counsel for the defendant opposed the application by submitting that no reason has been given in the application as to why the applicants did not come forward earlier. I have considered the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties and I have perused the record.
3. Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and injunction challenging the demarcation and framing of the new Tatima. Being a coowner of the property which is affected by the demarcation and the new Tatima, he could have filed the suit. The other co owners could have also challenged the demarcation and the new Tatima if they were aggrieved. Presence of the other coowners in the suit is not necessary for decision of the issues in the suit. The applicants do not become necessary or proper party only because they are coowners of the property. The other coowners who did not challenge the demarcation and the new Tatima cannot Suit No. 121/13 Page2/3 -3- challenge the same after expiry of the period of limitation. Even if the plaintiff fails in the suit, there is no change in position of the other coowners who did not challenge the demarcation and new Tatima within the period of limitation by complying with all legal requirements. Therefore the applicants are not necessary or proper parties for decision of the issues in this suit. They could have been impleaded as proforma defendants if their presence was required for just decision of the suit but their presence is not required as already mentioned above. Some of the coowners moved the application in the very beginning and on the second day of the hearing of the suit, they were permitted to be joined as defendants on the no objection of the plaintiff. The applicants herein are coming before the court after almost 09 years of the impleadment of the other coowners and they cannot draw parity with them. In the application it is stated that the suit is for their benefit also and therefore they should be impleaded as plaintiffs in the suit. This is no ground for impleadment as plaintiffs or even defendants in the suit for the reasons mentioned above. The application is dismissed.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/04/2014 (RAJESH KUMAR SINGH) Additional District Judge 5/Central Tis Hazari Courts/ Delhi Suit No. 121/13 Page3/3