ISHAR SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, HOSHIARPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of eight connected revision petitions as common questions of law and fact arise in them.

(2.) The petitioner in each of these petitions filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur seeking to restrain it from forcibly removing the shed of the plaintiff and goods lying therein situated opposite Radha Swami Satsang, Hoshiarpur. During the pendency of the suits, respondents 2 to 6 (for short, the applicants) filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called 'the Code') for being impleaded as defendants in each code suit on the ground that the decision in the suit was likely to affect the rights in their property which is commercial in nature and situated on the back side of the stall of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that the plots purchased by the applicants abut on the road but their vision has been cut off and the value of the plots diminished on account of installation of the sheds by the plaintiffs in front of their properties on municipal land. It was also stated in the application that the applicants had purchased the plots for the construction of shops and unless the stalls put up by the plaintiffs are removed by the Municipal Committee, the value of their shops was likely to be diminished. The applications were contested by all the plaintiffs-petitioners by denying the allegations made therein. It has been alleged by the plaintiffs that their stalls have been in existence much before the purchase of the plots by the applicants who have nothing to do with the land underneath the stall and that they are neither necessary nor proper parties in the present suit. It was also stated that the applicants had no locus standi to file the present application. The trial Court allowed the applications and impleaded the applicants as defendants in the suits, observing that the acceptance of the applications would avoid multiplicity of suits between the parties and that the decision of the cases might affect or jeopardise the rights or value of the property of the applicants and that they were, therefore, proper parties who were interested in the result of the suits. It was also observed that even if the value of their property is not affected, the applicants would at least go satisfied without getting any relief from the Court.

(3.) After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the impugned order impleading the applicants as defendants in the suits deserved to be set aside being manifestly illegal, improper and not warranted by the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code. -ae cause of action, if any which the plaintiffs have against the Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur is quite distinct from the cause of action which is alleged by the applicants against the plaintiffs and there being nothing common between the two, the addition of the applicants as defendants in the suits would result in misjoinder of causes of action and parties and for this reason, they cannot be allowed to join the suits as defendants. If they have any cause of action against the plaintiffs or even against the Municipal Committee, they may, if so advised, take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The plaintiffs in the present suits are not claiming any relief against the applicants who cannot, thus, be said to be even proper parties much less necessary parties. The reasons given by the trial Court in the impugned orders are not convincing.