HARBANS KAUR Vs. GURMEJ KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for seeking decree of permanent injunction in respect of the suit land is pending adjudication before the lower court at Ratia (Fatehabad). Consistent case of the defendants right from the very start is that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. An application was moved under Order I Rule 10 CPC by respondents No.5 and 6 now claiming that they were required to be impleaded as parties to the litigation as they have got right, title and interest in the lis pending litigation.

(2.) Though this application was strongly resisted especially from the petitioner-plaintiff, it was allowed by the lower court considering material facts and the attending circumstances because the land in litigation had even earlier been subject matter of civil and criminal litigation wherein a compromise was arrived at between the parties.

(3.) The land was sold when the fresh litigation started. Sale deed is of 28.11.2013. Applicant-respondents No.5 and 6 claim to be owners in possession of land measuring 22 Kanals 6 Marlas and claim that they are in established possession of the same. Possession of the plaintiff is denied. Details of earlier litigation between the parties regarding the suit land about which complete omission was made by the plaintiff in the present suit, were brought on record by the respondents-defendants. Fact of criminal litigation, interalia, under Section 471 IPC which was instituted by Jarnail Singh son of respondent-defendant No.4 on the ground that there was forgery in execution and registration of the sale deed was also brought to light. It has also come on record that there is compromise Ex.C1 of 4.11.2008. These facts were completely missed out by the respondent-plaintiff. In this backdrop, joining of respondents No.5 and 6 is necessary. Even otherwise, they are subsequent vendees and had even been participating in the earlier round of litigation between the parties. In fact, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, it is such a case where without joining of respondents No.5 and 6, the litigation between the parties cannot be adjudicated completely, competently and effectively.