VINAY PAL SINGLA Vs. BALDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 5.11.2011, passed by the court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as one of the defendants, was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 1 filed a suit against respondent No. 2 for permanent injunction for restraining him from forcibly interfering into the land or digging any soil therefrom. The defendant in the suit is shown to be the proprietor of firmM/s Singla B.K.O.. The stand of the petitioner is that he is in fact the sole proprietor of M/s Singla B. K. O. The defendant impleaded in the suit, who is his brother, has nothing to do with that firm. The petitioner has an agreement with the brother of the plaintiff regarding excavation of the land for the purpose of using the soil at his brick kiln, hence the petitioner is a necessary party.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. In the written statement filed to the plaint, the defendant, who is brother of the petitioner, had admitted that he and his brother, namely, the petitioner are in possession of the suit land under Bhagat Singh. He does not specifically deny that he is not the sole proprietor of the firm- M/s Singla B.K.O. or that he has no concern with the firm.