BANTI Vs. IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of the Sub-Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby Smt. Jaswant Kaur respondent No. 2 was ordered to be impleaded as a party to the suit.

(2.) The petitioner filed the suit for permanent injunction against the Improvement Trust restraining it from interfering with his possession claiming himself to be the owner in possession of the suit property. Respondent No. 2, moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a party setting up title in herself of the suit property. She thus in a way was trying to get her own title decided which matter is beyond the scope of the suit filed by the petitioner. It is admitted at the Bar that a suit regarding the title of the said property between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 has already been decided and second appeal is pending in this Court. The question of title between the petitioner and the respondent, therefore, cannot be agitated against in the present suit and the order of the trial Court in these circumstances is wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, however, relied on Murlidhar v. K.U.M. Samiti, Alwar, 1978 AIR(Raj) 48 to support the impugned order. No doubt, in this case it was held that a third person who sets up a title in himself against the plaintiff in a suit for injunction can be ordered to be impleaded. But with utmost respect to the learned Judge, I am unable to subscribe to this view. So far as this Court is concerned, the matter was elaborately and succinctly dealt with by R.S. Sarkaria, J. as he then was, in Banarsi Dass v. Panna Lal, 1969 AIR(P&H) 57, in the following passage :-

(3.) The matter sought to be raised by respondent No. 2 is not in issue in the present suit and in view of the rule laid down in Banarsi Dass's case , her prayer for impleading as a party could not be allowed. Learned counsel for the said respondent also referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bara Hanuman Temple Durgain, Amritsar v. Shri Gurbux Lal Malhotra, 1978 80 PunLR 187 but this case also is of no help to the respondent. The rule laid down therein is that a person can be ordered to be impleaded as a party only if his addition is absolutely necessary to adjudicate effectively and completely the matter in controversy between the parties. As already stated above, in the suit of the plaintiff the rights of respondent No. 2 are neither in issue nor are required to be settled for the disposal of the suit. The trial Court, therefore, acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction in allowing the application and ordering respondent No. 2 to be impleaded as a party to the suit. The impugned order is consequently set aside and the application of respondent No. 2 dismissed. No costs.