KEHAR SINGH Vs. SAVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.10.2013 (Annexure P/5) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Guru Har Sahai whereby application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC") in a civil suit titled as "Savinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others" has been dismissed. Petitioner moved an application in the suit between respondent No. 1 plaintiff and the other respondents - defendants. Hereinafter they would be referred to as applicant, plaintiff and defendants as they are arrayed in the suit.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration challenging the sale deeds and other entries in the revenue record. The other details are not required to be referred for disposal of this petition. During the pending of the suit, the petitioner -applicant moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a party on the ground that the suit is not being defended properly by the government; the suit is for possession of land allegedly gifted for construction of a civil hospital. Applicant has retired from the service of Health Department and he, his friends and relatives have been enjoying the facility of the Hospital for treatment since long. The government has spent crores of rupees on the building and equipment of the hospital. The public at large of Guru Har Sahai will be affected if the suit is not properly defended. As such, he is a necessary and proper party for effectively and completely adjudicating the issue involved in the suit. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and the same has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 04.10.2013. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that it is settled principle of law that the plaintiff is dominus litus and Court should not add any defendant against the wishes of the plaintiff unless the presence of defendant to be added is necessary for effectively and completely adjudicating the matter.