GEETA RAM Vs. BALJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, petitioner has assailed order dtd. 23/6/2017, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Nahan, District Sirmaur in CMP No. 13516 of 2017, titled as Geeta Ram Vs. Baljeet Singh, whereby an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC by the petitioner Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment praying therein that he may be impleaded as party defendant in the suit has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are as under:- Respondent No.1, Baljeet Singh alias Gama, has filed a suit against respondent No.2, Kesho Ram, praying for decree of permanent injunction qua the suit land on the ground that he along with other co-sharers, namely, Sh. Gita Ram (present petitioner) and Sh. Nathu Ram are co-owner in possession of the suit land and that the suit was being filed for the benefit of other co-sharers including the present petitioner and that defendant who was a stranger to the suit land was trying to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff by causing interference in his peaceful possession and an earlier suit filed by petitioner against the plaintiff stood decreed in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC stating therein that part of the suit land stood sold by plaintiff, Baljeet Singh, to him and he (Baljeet Singh) was left with no share or possession over the suit land. Though after the death of one Smt. Shiv Devi, plaintiff (Baljeet Singh) along with his brother Sh. Nathu Ram had succeeded to her estate, but plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. The pleadings in the suit filed by Baljeet Singh were false and incorrect and to negate the claim of the plaintiff, it was necessary to implead the petitioner as party defendant. This application has been rejected by learned Court below vide impugned order. Learned Court has held that as no relief was claimed against the petitioner, therefore, he was not a necessary party. It held that as the suit was neither for declaration nor for possession, therefore, there was no cause of action against Geeta Ram, i.e., the petitioner to be impleaded as a party defendant as Geeta Ram was neither necessary nor a proper party for the adjudication of the case.