OM PARKASH Vs. BAL MUKAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. As is evident from the record that, initially, petitioner-plaintiff Om Parkash son of Mulkhi Ram (for brevity the plaintiff) had instituted the civil suit on 3.8.2002 against Bal Mukand, Ravinder Kumar s/o Mulakh Raj (respondents-defendant Nos. 1 and 2); Roop Lal s/o Milkhi Ram (respondent-defendant No. 3); Kalian Singh son of Mool Raj (respondent-defendant No. 4); Hukam Chand, Sushil Kumar, Vijay Kumar s/o Diwan Chand (respondents-defendants No. 5 to 7) and Sham Piyari wd/o Diwan Chand (respondent-defendant No. 8) (for short the defendants), for a decree of partition by metes and bounds in respect of the land in dispute. The plaintiff and his counsel suffered a statement that he (plaintiff) does not want to proceed with the suit against defendant Nos. 6. and 7. Consequently, the suit against them was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 11.4.2008. Thereafter, having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree, by virtue of judgment & decree dated 3.12.2009 (Annexure PI).

(2.) Aggrieved thereby, defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 filed the appeal, which was accepted, preliminary decree was set aside and the case was remanded back to the trial Court to decide it afresh after permitting them to lead additional evidence, by means of judgment dated 7.3.2011 (Annexure P2) by the appellate Court.

(3.) Now, the plaintiff has moved an application (Annexure P3) for permission to join defendant Nos. 6 & 7 in the main suit. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that initially, the plaintiff had field the civil suit against the defendants, including defendant Nos. 6 & 7. He himself had withdrawn his suit against defendant Nos. 6 and 7, vide order dated 11.4.2008. Once, defendant Nos. 6 & 7 were the parties, the suit against them was withdrawn by the plaintiff, preliminary decree was passed and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court by the appellate Court, in the manner depicted here-in-above, in that eventuality, the plaintiff cannot possibly be permitted to again join defendant Nos. 6 and 7 in the main suit at this belated stage.