JAGDEV SINGH Vs. CHAND KAUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAGDEV Singh Plaintiff has preferred this revision petition against the order of the trial Court allowing to implead Jarnail Singh, Malkiat Singh and Mithu Singh as Respondents during the pendency of the suit, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that Jagdev Singh Plaintiff filed a suit on 7th June 1986 for declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit land, against his sister Chand Kaur Defendant. In the above referred suit, Chand Kaur Defendant filed written statement and admitted the entire case of her brother Jagdev Singh. Her statement was also recorded by the trial Court to the same effect. The suit was still pending when Jarnail Singh, Malkiat Singh, Mithu Singh sons of Chand Singh filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading them as Defendants, contending that the aforesaid Mst. Chand Kaur had entered into an agreement dated 4th December. 1986, to sell the land measuring 117 Kanals 8 Marlas in their favour, and that she received Rs. 80,000/ - as earnest money. The trial Court allowed their application by holding that they were necessary parties to the suit, while relying upon the findings of this Court in Banarsi Dass Durga Parshad v. Panna Lal Ram Richhpal Oswal : A.I.R. 1969 P&H. 57, and Major Singh v. Naranjan Singh, (1983) 85 P.L.R. 435.

(3.) IT was held by this Court in Banarsi Dass's case (supra) that under Order (sic) Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a person may be allowed to join as a party when he is a necessary party or when without his presence the controversy in the suit cannot be completely decided. It was stated that there is no jurisdiction to add a party in any other case merely because that would save a third person the expense and botheration of a separate suit for seeking adjudication of a collateral matter, which was not directly and substantively in issue in the suit into which he seeks intrusion. It is further held that the Plaintiff is the dominus litis and the master of his own case. He cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not wish to fight and against whom he does not claim any relief. In the said case, Shri Baaarsi Dass instituted a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale against Smt. Chameli widow of Udha Ram During the pendency of that suit, Panna Lal and Banwari Lal instituted another suit against Shmt. Chameli for a permanent injunction restraining her from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs over a Chabutra and in the alternative, they prayed for possession of the property. Baaarsi Dass then moved an application under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a party in the later suit contending that Chabutra was a part of the property, which was the subject matter of his suit for specific performance of contract against Smt. Chameli and that Panna Lal and Banwari Lal had brought this suit in collusion with Smt Chameli in order to defeat his suit for specific performance. The trial Court dismissed the application by holding that Banarsi Dass was neither a necessary nor a proper party. Banarsi Dass then came up in revision petition which was dismissed by the High Court by holding that he was not a necessary party and that he had not got any vested right in the property as he had yet to establish his right to the property. Thus, it appears that the trial Court had not understood the import of the findings of this Court in Banarsi Dass's case (supra).