MAN SINGH Vs. NIHAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 9.11.2002, whereby the application filed by defendant no.3 for striking of his name as a defendant, was allowed.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction, whereby it has been alleged that the entries in the revenue record have been effected by Nihal Singh in connivance with the Patwari for the purposes of deriving benefit. Defendant no.3 is a Patwari against whom the plaintiff has alleged that Nihal Singh defendant has connived with him for conferring undue benefit on the said defendant.

(3.) Defendant no.3 moved an application for striking off his name from the memo of parties on the ground that no relief has been claimed against him and he has no interest in the suit property. He has discharged his duties in the official capacity and, therefore, the suit against him is not maintainable. The learned trial Court allowed the said application. Aggrieved against the said order, the plaintiff is in revision petition. The plaintiff has alleged in para no. 5-A of the plaint that entries in the revenue record are unauthorised, collusive and based on misrepresentation. The said entries have been got effected by Nihal Singhdefendant no.1 in connivance with the Patwari Halqa in order to derivebenefit in a secret manner. Since there are allegations of connivance, fraud and misrepresentation, defendant no.3 was impleaded as one of the parties. It is not necessary that the plaintiff must ask for a relief before the said defendant could be impleaded as a party. Since there are personal allegations against defendant no.3, he was impleaded as a party. The allegations are yet to be examined by the Court on the basis of evidence which may be led by the parties. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court deleting his name from the array of parties is wholly unjustified.