NAIB SINGH Vs. SADA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is against an order of Sh. M.L. Bansal, Sub-Judge, II Class, Ambala, whereby he allowed an application of Sheo Ram respondent to be impleaded as a co-plaintiff in a suit which was being compromised by the plaintiffs and defendants and through this measure, the compromise between the original parties was stalled.

(2.) The bone of contention in the suit related to two baras Nos. 302 and 303 situated in village Baraundi, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. The plaintiffs Naib Singh and Baldev Singh, sons of Rikhi Ram, claim to have purchased these plots from another by means of a registered deed for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and since it had been trespassed upon by the defendants, they sued them for a declaration and possession. During the course of proceedings, the parties submitted a written compromise whereby ownership and possession was conceded to the plaintiffs to the extent of 5/8th share in the plots and the remaining 3/8th share was conceded in favour of the defendants, except Nand Singh defendant. When the Court was about to put seal to the said compromise and dispose of the suit accordingly, Sheo Ram respondent, who happens to be the third brother of the plaintiffs, filed an application that he had a vital interest in the property in dispute being a co-owner with the plaintiffs and since they were compromising the suit by trampling his rights over the property in dispute, he was a necessary party to be impleaded as a co-plaintiff. The learned trial Judge, finding merit in the application, allowed it and in this manner the suit was not disposed of and is left to be agitated.

(3.) The plaintiff-petitioners have challenged the action taken by the trial Judge and his view that the intervener was a necessary party to be impleaded as a co-plaintiff. It has been urged that the trial Court's exercise of discretion under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, has led to a failure of justice, for it has been assumed barely on the affidavit of the application that he is a co-owner in the property in dispute as also in possession of 1/3rd thereof just on the basis of an affidavit. It has been asserted by the petitioners' learned counsel that in the presence of the registered deed, concededly in favour of the plaintiffs, there was not even a prima facie case with the applicant-respondent to aver and prove that he was a co-owner with the plaintiffs or to have asserted possession on the plots when there was no documentary evidence to support his claim, even prima facie. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant-respondent, says that the discretion exercised by the learned trial Judge is not open to revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, and further, joining of the applicant was absolutely essential and necessary, for in his absence the Court would have been unable to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the matter in issue.