LAWS(P&H)-1992-3-48

RAM SINGH SHARMA Vs. PARMOD KUMARI

Decided On March 06, 1992
RAM SINGH SHARMA Appellant
V/S
PARMOD KUMARI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against order dated August 22, 1991, by which the Senior Subordinate Judge, Rohtak, dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a co-defendant in the suit.

(2.) SMT. Parmod Kumari instituted a suit for declaration that she was owner in possession of plot No. 2 measuring 412 square yards in D. L. F. Colony, Rohtak, in which she had constructed a boundary wall, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Municipal Committee from demolishing the boundary wall abutting on the municipal street. The case is being contested by the Municipal Committee. It was pleaded by the Committee that the plot in question abuts on a 50 feet wide street of the Municipal Committee and the plaintiff had encroached upon an area 18 feet wide from out of the said Public street The case of the plaintiff is that the street in front of her plot is only 30 feet wide and not 50 feet wide. The parties had almost concluded their evidence when the petitioner made an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a co-defendant with the Municipal Committee. The application was resisted by the plaintiff and it was dismissed by the trial Court mainly on two grounds, namely, (1) that the applicant was not a necessary party, and (2) that no relief was sought by the plaintiff against him. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant has preferred this revision.

(3.) THE contention of Mr. C. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner's house also abuts on the same street and he is thus vitally interested in the outcome of the suit. He further submits that the petitioner apprehends that the Committee may collude with the plaintiff and thereby prejudice the right of the petitioner, whose house also abuts on the same street across the road, almost in front of the plot of the plaintiff. He placed reliance on Rakhaldas Mukherjj v. Kalipada Bhattacharji, A. I. R. 1936 Cal. 534.