INDERJIT SINGH Vs. JAGIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 4.10.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity, the Code), seeking permission to join him and Dalbir Singh as defendants in the suit filed by the plaintiff No. 1 against the defendant -respondent No.2.

(2.) The plaintiff -respondent No. 1 has filed Civil Suit No.242 dated 14.9.1996/ 16.7.1997 for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit properly and the sale deed dated 23.11.1995 allegedly executed by him is a forged and fraudulent document which is liable to be cancelled. It is further claimed that plaintiff -respondent No. 1 never sold this property to defendant -respondent No.2. Further consequential relief of permanent injunction from interfering of alienating the property on the basis of fraudulent sale deed has also been claimed. In this suit, an application has been filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code seeking permission to join Dalbir Singh and him as defendants by taking the plea that the suit property was sold to Dalbir Singh and the petitioner with equal shares on 4.12.1996. It is further claimed that they are in possession of the suit property having constructed shops therein. Various documents from the record have been quoted which show that defendant -respondent No.2 has acquired proprietary rights which include entries in the record of Municipal Corporation and payment of house tax etc. In the application averments have also been made stating that plaintiff -respondent No. 1 attempted to break open the lock of the suit property but later compromised with defendant -respondent No.2. Later on , plaintiff -respondent No. 1 filed a suit for permanent injunction which was dismissed and an application in the Court of Rent Controller was also dismissed on 6.9.1998. It is further asserted that on the basis of the sale deed executed by defendant -respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner and one Dalbir Singh, a loan of Rs. One lac has been obtained from the Punjab National Bank. Therefore, they are necessary and proper parties for just decision of the case.

(3.) I have heard Shri Raman Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have perused the record. Plaintiff -respondent No. 1 who is contesting party was served by way of affixation but no one has put in appearance on his behalf. Shri Sharma states that appearance of defendant -respondent No.2 is not necessary for decision of the present revision petition.