AMIAN Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT BAROTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amian and others (Plaintiff's before the trial Court) petitioners in this Revision Petition filed a suit against the Panchayat and the Members of the Panchayat praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from allowing the water of the main street from the Harijan Chopal to run towards the site 'AB' as marked in the Plan annexed with the plaint. As soon as the notice of the suit was served upon the Gram Panchayat, Chattar Singh and Lachhman Singh (respondents Nos. 6 and 7 in the present Revision Petition), filed an application before the trial Court that they may be impleaded as defendants in the suit as any decree or order passed by the trial Court in the litigation would affect them, the reason being that their houses were located on the very street in regard to which the relief was prayed for by the petitioners. A reply to this application was also filed but there is no specific denial of the fact that the houses of the applications were situated in the street in question. The trial Court after giving thought to the matter, passed an order, dated January 12, 1978, allowing the two applicants to be impleaded as defendant Nos. 6 and 7 in the suit. The present Revision Petition is directed against the said order of the trial Court.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in this matter. The main and, in fact, the only contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the applicants should not have been impleaded as defendants in the suit as the petitioners do not claim any relief against them and their impleading tantamounts to forcing the petitioners to fight against a third party against their wishes. There is no dispute with the proposition that under Order 1, rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, a third party can be impleaded in a pending suit when that party is a necessary party and without whom the suit cannot be decided. All that is required to be see at this stage, and that too only prima facie, is as to whether the applicants are necessary parties to the litigation or not. As already noticed, in their application the applicants specially mentioned that they were residents of the street in regard to which the relief had been prayed for in the suit filed by the petitioners. In the absence of any rebuttal in this respect, it is reasonable to presume, at least prima facie that any decree or order which might be passed in the suit would certainly affect their interest. In these circumstances, the applicants are necessary parties and their impleading as defendants in the suit in no way unjustifiable. The trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and I find no reason to interfere with that discretion under the revisory powers of this Court.

(3.) The Revision Petition is misconceived. The parties, through their counsel have been directed to appear before the trial Court on October 23, 1978, for further proceedings in the suit.