SARUP CHAND Vs. NAGAR PALIKA SANGRUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-petitioner bar filed this revision petition against the order of the trial Court, whereby application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, field on behalf of respondent No. 2, Talia Ram, has been allowed.

(2.) THE plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against Nagar Palika, Sangrur, to the effect that the defendant be restrained from demolishing and breaking the wall, mentioned in the notice dated 11th June, 1979, issued by the defendant. During the pendency of this suit, one Talia Ram filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the prayer that he be impleaded as a respondent in the suit. His case is that there is one lane shown by letters ABC in the site plan attached and there was a wall in front of this lane which wall was demolished in the year 1978, and any relief granted to the Plaintiff in his absence, is likely to affect him adversely, and that he ought to be arrayed as a party so that Court may be able to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit This application was contested on behalf of the plaintiff and it was stated that he has got no interest in the suit property and he is not affected thereby. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the application and directed the plaintiff to implead Talia Ram as defendant. It has been observed by the trial Court, that "contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that applicant be not allowed to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff as plaintiff is dominus litis cannot be said to be tenable. under the circumstances of the case and in view of legal position discussed above. Feeling aggrieved against this order. the plaintiff-petitoner has come in revision to this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the trial Court has wrongly placed reliance on a judgment the Madras High Court, reported as Krisbnamachari v. Dhanalakshmi Ammal, AIR 1968 Mad 142. According to the learned counsel, that view has not been accepted by this Court in Kaka Singh v. Rohi Singh 1977 Pun LJ 320. He also cited Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh, 1974 Cur LJ 716; Benarsi Dass v. Panna Lal, AIR 1969 Punj 57 and Padam Kumar Jain v. Digambar Jain Sabha, 1969 Cur LJ 1041, in his support According to the learned counsel, no me could be impleaded as a party against the wishes of the plaintiff unless he is a necessary Party for the Proper adjudication of the suit.