Abdul Gani Rather vs Fayaz Ahmad Khan and Others

Y.P. Nargotra, J.—The respondent No. 1 has filed a suit for perpetual injunction against respondents 2 to 4 for restraining them from

demolishing a small shed existing on his piece of land measuring 1 marlas comprising in Survey No. 27 min situated at Eidgah, Srinagar.

The petitioner moved an application for being impleaded in the suit as party on the ground that he has also instituted a suit for permanent

injunction against the respondents in respect of the land falling in Survey No. 27 min situated at Eidgah, and the land involved in the suit of the

respondent No. 1 is part of the land involved in the suit of the petitioner.

Learned Trial court, by its order impugned dated 10.6.2002, rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has failed to

show as to how his rights or interests are at stake.

This order of rejection of the prayer of the petitioner is the subject matter of this revision.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Under Order 1 Rule 19(2) a person can be added as party only on the satisfaction of any of the two

conditions; one, that he ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant but has been left out; two, that without his presence the questions

involved in the suit cannot be decided.

In the suit, the respondent No. 1 plaintiff has not sought any relief against the petitioner, so he ought not to be made party. In the suit, question

primarily involved is, whether the defendants are intending to demolish his structure raised on his land without the authority of law. For deciding

such question the presence of petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner claims that in fact he is the owner of the land involved in the suit, as such

interested party. IN the suit of a plaintiff, it is his choice to make any person a defendant against whom he seeks relief and a third person against

whom no relief has been sought and whose presence is not necessary for deciding the suit, can at the most be an intervener and such intervener can

only support or oppose the case of the plaintiff or the defendant in whose success he has reasonable interest. He cannot be permitted to set up his

independent case.

Learned trial Court, as such, was right in holding that the petitioner was not a necessary party. The revision of the petitioner is without any merit

and is dismissed. The trial court be informed accordingly.