MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 filed a suit against respondent No. 2 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from constructing a tube-well on the site in dispute which the plaintiff claimed to be owned by him. The petitioner-Municipality, Karnal, made an application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, for being impleaded as party alleging that the land in dispute vests in the Municipality and it was at its instance that the State authorities had undertaken to construct the tube-well for providing water to the inhabitants of the City. The trial Court dismissed that application on the ground that the plaintiff was the dominus litis and third party claiming title adverse to the plaintiff has not right to impose himself upon the latter and get his title decided. The proposition of law enunciated is unexceptional but has hardly and application on the present case. Here, the State is not claiming any title as opposed to the plaintiff, nor the construction of the tube-well was undertaken by it on its own. The dispute of title is between the plaintiff and the Municipality and not the defendant State and as such the matter cannot be settled finally and satisfactorily unless the Municipality is impeded as party. The trial Court thus acted illegally in exercise of its jurisdiction in declining the prayer. The impugned order is accordingly reversed. No costs.