JOGINDER SINGH Vs. AJAIB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is against the order of Sub Judge dated 12.12.1994 allowing respondents application to be impleaded as party in the pending suit.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that Atma Singh, his father, was owner of the property. Since he was accused of murdering his father and convicted to a life imprisonment, he was divested of his right to inherit and so the property left by Atma Singh was shared by respondents Jaswinder Kaur and Gurvinder Kaur, his sisters and Ajaib Singh and Jaswant Singh -the applicants, his brothers, ordered to be impleaded. Petitioner has made no grievance to it. It is subsequently that petitioner filed the present suit against his sisters in which the present application has been filed by respondent No. 1 and 2 to be impleaded as necessary/proper parties which has been allowed by the Court.

(3.) DEFENDING the order passed, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents urged that their presence is essential for effectually and completely adjudicating upon all the questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. According to the counsel, Jaswinder Kaur had already been restrained from alienating her share in the disputed land by the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda. So, on facts and circumstances of the case the presence of the applicants would not only cut short the litigation but also will be help full in effectually determining the controversy raised by the petitioner. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions reported as Bharat Singh and Ors. v. Om Parkash and Ors., 1984 P.L.J. 102 and Ved Kumar v. Smt. Raj Rani Bhati and Ors., 1993 1 P.L.R. 531.