VIR SINGH Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the order dated 27.10.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chachiot at Gohar District Mandi, H.P., H.P., whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 C.P.C., praying therein for impleadment as well as amendment of plaint having been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (herein after referred to as "the plaintiff") came to be rejected, plaintiff has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-visimpugned order passed by the court below, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the same, rather this Court finds that impugned order is based upon proper appreciation of facts as well as law and as such, same needs to be upheld. In the case at hand, application as referred herein above, came to be filed on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that part of the claim of the applicant/plaintiff pertains to the adjoining government land, upon which the respondent has caused interference as is evident from the pleadings and evidence led on record. Plaintiff averred in the application that the State has been not arrayed as party and joining khasra No. 161/2 measuring 0-1-0 bigha, which is a part of khasra No. 161, measuring 6-5-5 situate in Muhal Dadhoun/394, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P., has not been pleaded as suit land and as such, plaint having been filed by him needs to be amended and State of Himachal Pradesh being necessary and proper party, needs to be impleaded as party respondent.

(3.) Careful perusal of plaint (Annexure P-1), having been filed by the plaintiff suggests that plaintiff filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction under Sections 38 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act, wherein admittedly, he has not claimed any relief against Government of Himachal Pradesh, rather relief, if any, has been sought against the defendant, against whom, it has been specifically alleged that he has started unlawful interference by way of starting encroaching upon the suit land by extending his construction from the government land and as such, learned court below rightly arrived at a conclusion that State of Himachal Pradesh is not necessary and proper party as far as proper adjudication of the case at hand, is concerned. Admittedly dispute inter-se parties, is qua the suit land, which is not the government land.