AMAR SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SABUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has impugned Order date 5th September, 1990 pass by the trial Court whereby in a suit filed by him respondent No. 2 was to be impleaded as a respondent on an application filed by him under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

(2.) The petitioner filed a suit for injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from interfering in his possession. Jagdish Singh, respondent No. 7, filed an application for being impleaded as a party to the suit on the ground that the suit land was the property of Jumla Malkan and Digar Haqdaran and that the plaintiff in connivance with the revenue officials got the entries in his favour. It was alleged that in fact the plaintiff never cultivated the land in any capacity and has no concern whatsoever with it. The further allegation of the applicant was that the land was being used by the inhabitants of the village for common purposes, and, therefore, he was a necessary party. The learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for parties allowed the application.

(3.) What has weighed with the trial Court in granting relief to the applicant is that the property in dispute is recorded in the revenue record as Jumla Malkan and Digar Haqdaran and is being used by the villagers for common purposes. The learned trial Judge consequently observed that the applicant, who is a right holder in the village, was a necessary and proper_ party. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 2 was neither a necessary nor a proper party in a suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from interfering in his possession. He further submitted that he is not seeking any relief whatsoever against the applicant-respondent No. 2 and thus he is neither a necessary nor a proper party.