LAJPAT RAI SOHAL Vs. KRISHANA SOOD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure against the order passed by the Learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla, dated 14.3.2011, dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure

(2.) A notice of the petition was issued to the Respondents, who filed their reply. No rejoinder sought to be filed.

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, to substantiate his case that State of H.P. is a necessary party and the application under Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure deserves to be allowed has relied upon the two decisions. The decision in Rajiv Goel v. Sohan Lal Khosla and Anr., 2010 (2) CCC 334, shows that while considering the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, it was observed that if a person is likely to be affected by the result of the suit, he becomes a proper party and should be allowed to be added as a party to the suit. An application had been filed by the Petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as a party Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff was alleging the public street to be a private street and the suit was for injunction against the Municipal Council. It is on the facts of that case that it was observed that the Petitioner was entitled to be impleaded as a party in the suit.