AJIT SINGH Vs. DAYAL CHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against order dated 16.7.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhari whereby application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading the petitioner as a party, was dismissed. Suit filed by one Dyal Chand against defendant Gram Panchayat Bhagwanpur, respondent No. 2 herein, for seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from blocking, dismantling, digging or causing any damage to the street as per the site plan attached with the plaint, is pending adjudication in the lower court. The suit is being contested by the respondent Gram Panchayat. It is a conceded fact that earlier proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana, had also been litigated in the revenue courts. Merely because Ajit Singh had been a party in the said proceedings before the revenue court, does not entitle him to become a party even in this suit. Moreover, in his application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, he has not been able to make out a case that his impleadment as party in the suit is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the matter in controversy as also for decision of rival claims of the parties. His claim that the parties to the suit are in collusion with each other, is hard to believe without any supporting documents or circumstances emerging on record. When Gram Panchayat itself is contesting the suit tooth and nail, his plea that he being a resident of the village, wants to protect the panchayat property and thus, is to be impleaded as party, has no merit.

(2.) It is legitimately expected that the defendant Gram Panchayat, respondent herein, would produce all the documents including the pleadings and the adjudication made by the revenue courts in respect of the suit land before the court below for proper appreciation and adjudication of the matter.