AMAR SINGH Vs. MEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Court of Shri K.K. Kataria, Subordinate Judge, Second Class, Jagraon, dated March 27, 1976, whereby he allowed the application of respondent No. 2 under Order 1, rule 10, read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for being impleaded as a party to the suit filed by the present petitioner against respondent No. 1 for a permanent injunction to restrain him from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the said property. The contesting respondent in this petition is respondent No. 2 whose application has been allowed by the trial Court. The prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner is that the order of the trial Court be reversed and the application of respondent No. 2 be dismissed. Respondent No. 2 is represented by a counsel while respondent No. 1 is absent in spite of service by registered post. In any case, respondent No. 1, the defendant in the suit, is a mere proforma party to this revision petition.

(2.) The suit was instituted in January, 1974. It was defended by respondent No. 1. After the evidence of the plaintiff had been concluded and the evidence of the two witnesses of the defendant had been recorded, the second respondent made an application for being impleaded as a party to the suit.

(3.) The only ground on which the trial Court has allowed the application of respondent No. 2 is that the presence of that respondent before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. I am unable to agree with this finding of the trial Court. The basis of the suit is that the plaintiff petitioner is in possession of the property. The basis of the contest by the defendant (Respondent No. 1) is that he is in possession of the property. The off-shoot of the two basic pleas is as to who is the owner under whom one of the two parties to the suit is in possession. If the plaintiff is not able to prove that he is in possession of the suit property in respect of which the defendant has to be restrained, then his suit for injunction must fail. If on the other hand, the plaintiff is in possession of the property, he will prima facie succeed to the extent that he will be entitled to retrain the defendant from interfering with his possession unless the defendant is able to show some better title than the plaintiff to the possession of the property for obtaining which also the defendant, will, in all probability, have resort to appropriate legal proceedings In a suit like this, it is wholly unnecessary to complicate the case by impleading the Wakf Board. Since the Board (Respondent No. 2) is not a party to the suit, it would not be bound by any finding in the suit which may be prejudicial to its interest.