LAWS(P&H)-1987-3-44

HARKARNAIL SINGH Vs. RAM KUMAR

Decided On March 03, 1987
Harkarnail Singh Appellant
V/S
RAM KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners filed this suit for possession of the land in dispute and mesne profits against the respondents. To establish their claim, they got a Local Commissioner appointed, who reported that the land in dispute was in possession of one Prem Singh and not that of the respondent. The petitioners then moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure impleading Prem Singh as one of the defendants, which was declined by the trial Court on the ground that no relief has been claimed against the said person. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs have come up in this Revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that as the Local Commissioner had reported Prem Singh to be in possession, so it had become necessary for the proper disposal of the suit to implead him as a party to the suit. In support of his contention, he has relied on Sham Lal v. Mst. Jagwanti and others, 1976 Revenue Law Reporter 79, Parbati Sham Achary v. Smt. Manasi Devi AIR 1977 Orissa 139 and Banarsi Dass v. Panna Lal and others, 1968 Punjab Law Reporter 451. There can be no dispute with the principle of law enunciated in the said decisions, but as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Arjan Singh and others v. Kartar Singh and others, AIR 1975 Punjab and Haryana 184, before a person can be added as a party, it must be shown that it was necessary to do so to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the points in the suit. As is evident from a bare perusal of the application filed by the petitioners, they still maintain that Prem Singh is neither in possession of the suit property nor he has anything to do therewith. Obviously, no relief possibly can be claimed against Prem Singh in view of the said averment. The learned counsel, however, urged that though the application has not been properly drafted, but it has become necessary of the petitioners to claim a relief against Prem Singh, which they will do when he is impleaded as a party. It is not possible to subscribe to this view. Before Prem Singh can be ordered to be impleaded as a party, it has to be shown that the suit cannot be effectually disposed of without impleading him. The correctness of the report of the commissioner is being disputed by the plaintiffs and they still maintain that Prem Singh is neither in possession nor he has anything to do with the property in dispute. Prem Singh, in these circumstances, cannot be said to be a necessary party so far as the plaintiffs are concerned. This petition, therefore, must fail and is hereby dismissed. However, the dismissal of this application would not debar the plaintiff's from making a proper application for amendment of the pleadings and the impleading of Prem Singh as a party after making out a proper case for such a relief. No costs.