GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE MAUJGARH Vs. MUKHTIAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 11.3.2006 (Annexure P.4) passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the application of the petitioner preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code'). The plaintiff- respondents have filed a civil suit No.410 of 2005 on 6.12.2005 for permanent injunction with regard to the land in dispute and he has impleaded Mohinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Harjinder Singh as defendant- respondents. The allegation of the petitioner is that the land in dispute belongs to Gram Panchayat and the plaintiff- respondent and defendant- respondents have got nothing to do with the same. The plaintiff- respondent wished to grab the land in collusion on the basis of the judgement and decree dated 12.8.1998 which is alleged to be obtained by the plaintiff- respondent in connivance with the then Sarpanch. Even the appeal against the afore-mentioned judgement and decree was dismissed. A copy of the judgement and decree has been placed on record as Annexure P.2. The learned trial Court dismissed the application upholding that the concerned Gram Panchayat is not a necessary party as already a judgement and decree is available against it and no relief has been sought against the Gram Panchayat by the plaintiff- respondent. It has further been observed that the plaintiff is dominus litus and cannot be compelled to fight litigation against a stranger like the petitioner as he has not claimed any relief against them.The petitioner has failed to show to the trial Court as to how he is a necessary and a proper party.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel I am of the considered view that the order passed by the learned trial Court is unexceptional and does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It has been found by the trial Court that against the Gram Panchayat there is already a judgement and decree dated 12.8.1998 (Annexure P.2) in existence against which the appeal has also been dismissed on 2.11.2000 by the learned District Judge, Sirsa ( Annexure P.3). Therefore, the petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party. The allegation that the plaintiff- respondent wishes to grab the land of the Gram Panchayat is unfounded because such an allegation could have been made only in the previous litigation in respect of which the judgement dated 12.8.1998 is already on record as Annexure P.2. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the afore-mentioned judgement and decree then he was required to file a suit challenging the afore-mentioned judgement decree in appropriate proceedings. In the absence of availing the remedy to challenge the afore-mentioned judgement, the petitioner cannot be permitted to interject in the civil suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent as he is neither a necessary nor a proper party in terms of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code. Even otherwise no manifest injustice is likely to result to the petitioner which may warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is wholly without merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. For the reasons afore-mentioned this petition fails and the same is dismissed.