KUNDAN SINGH Vs. MOHINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Kundan Singh, hereinafter described as "the petitioner" directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, dated 3.3.1998. By virtue of the impugned order, learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code").

(2.) The relevant facts are that Mohinder Kaur respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit against Bakshish Kaur and another for directing the revenue authorities for execution of mutation No. 2575 to be effected on the basis of a Sale deed dated 22.8.1983. in the copy of the plaint it has been mentioned that one Kundan Singh s/o Ishar Singh is in illegal possession of land in some area and reference has also been made to the sale deed dated 22.8.1983 referred to above. During the pendency of the said suit filed by respondent-plaintiff Mohinder Kaur, the present petitioner submitted an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code. It was pointed out that respondent-plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for possession against Kundan Singh. The said suit was dismissed by Sh. S.S. Hundal, Sub Judge, 1st Class, Jalandhar and the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed by the learned Add!. District Judge, Jalandhar. The petitioner contended that he is directly involved in the controversy between the parties. In the earlier suit between the petitioner and the respondent-plaintiff, a finding has already been arrived at pertaining to the said sale deed. Therefore, he claimed that petitioner should be impleaded as a party. The said application was contested by the respondent-plaintiff. The learned trial Court held that when the respondent-plaintiff does not want the petitioner to be impleaded as a party, the application is without any merit and accordingly it was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) It is well settled that the Court on its own motion or on the application of the concerned person impleads another person as a party but it is necessary that the presence of the said party or person is necessary to determine the question of controversy between the parties. If it is not so, the application can well be rejected. This court in the case of Banarsi Dass v. Panna Lal and Ors., (1968)70 P.L.R. 451 had considered the said controversy and opined that ordinarily plaintiff is opposed to adding of a person as party because he should not be impleaded as such. But even in the cited judgment learned Single Judge of this Court held that where the Court finds that the addition of new defendant is necessary to effectively adjudicate the matter in controversy between the parties, even without the consent of the plaintiff such a person can be added as a party. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, it has been held as under :-