SUNITA Vs. DEEPAK AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order being assailed dated 15.09.2015, rendered by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bahadurgarh, application moved by Naresh Kumar son of Suraj Bhan (respondent No.2), under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has since been allowed and he has been arrayed as defendant to the suit. The conclusion arrived at reads as thus:

(2.) Concededly, father of respondent No.2 i.e. Suraj Bhan was the owner in possession of the suit property, who relinquished his interest in favour of respondent No.2, vide judgment and decree dated 01.04.1992. Accordingly, mutation bearing No.4469-V dated 09.06.1992, was also sanctioned in favour of Naresh Kumar. Thereafter, Sube Singh, father of respondent No.1-Deepak, was alleged to have fraudulently obtained a civil court decree against Naresh Kumar. And subsequently, Sube Singh suffered a decree dated 01.05.1999 qua the suit property in favour of his son Deepak. Both these decrees; one obtained by Sube Singh against Naresh Kumar and other suffered by Sube Singh in favour of his son Deepak, were assailed by respondent No.2-Naresh Kumar. In the meanwhile, for respondent No.1 executed an agreement to sell dated 16.02.2009, in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner, the application was moved by respondent No.2-Naresh Kumar to be arrayed as party.

(3.) During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the suit filed by respondent No.2-Naresh Kumar against Deepak and Sube Singh had since been decreed and consequently, the decrees dated 06.12.1995 and 01.05.1999, granted in their favour, have been set aside. Meaning thereby, as of now, respondent-Naresh Kumar holds title to the suit property. Undoubtedly, Naresh Kumar is not a party to the agreement to sell dated 16.02.2009. And obviously no relief is being claimed against him. That being so, he may not be a necessary party to the lis. But, in the wake of the position as set out above, he indeed is a proper party. And his arraignment to the suit would enable the court to arrive at a just and fair decision in the matter as also in crystallizing the rights and obligations of the parties. And, of course, to avoid multiplicity of litigation.