BOOTA SINGH Vs. GURMAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit filed by the plaintiff, respondent herein, seeking declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land with consequential relief of permanent injunction, is pending adjudication before the court below. In the written statement furnished by defendant No.2, petitioner herein, a preliminary objection had been taken that the suit was bad for non -joinder of necessary parties. It was, however, explained that defendant No.2, petitioner herein, was neither owner nor in possession of any portion of the suit property. Nothing more was explained.

(2.) LATER , defendant No.2, petitioner herein, moved an application on 24.1.2011 for amendment of his written statement with a view to take specific plea that due to non -joinder of Smt. Jasmel Kaur, wife of petitionerdefendant No.2, the suit was bad. It was also explained that vide sale deed dated 15.9.2006, she had purchased the land measuring 10 Kanals 10 Marlas out of the suit property and is in possession of the same. This application was withdrawn by the petitioner, defendant No.2 on 26.8.2011 and was dismissed as such.

(3.) SINCE by then, the plaintiff, respondent herein, had known the particulars, an application was moved by him on 07.04.2011 under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC for impleadment of Smt. Jasmel Kaur as defendant No.3. This application was opposed tooth and nail by the petitioner -defendant No.2 claiming that the respondent -plaintiff was already in knowledge of these particulars as in another suit titled "Jasmel Kaur Vs. Malkiat Singh" filed in November, 2006 in Moga Courts, the plaintiff, respondent herein, had already made appearance and thus, the application for impleadment of Smt. Jasmel Kaur was devoid of any merit.