Amar Singh vs Gram Panchayat, Sabun

G.C. Gal, J.—The petitioner has impugned Order date 5th September, 1990 pass by the trial Court whereby in a suit filed by him respondent No. 2 was to be impleaded as a respondent on an application filed by him under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

The petitioner filed a suit for injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from interfering in his possession. Jagdish Singh, respondent No. 7, filed an application for being impleaded as a party to the suit on the ground that the suit land was the property of Jumla Malkan and Digar Haqdaran and that the plaintiff in connivance with the revenue officials got the entries in his favour. It was alleged that in fact the plaintiff never cultivated the land in any capacity and has no concern whatsoever with it. The further allegation of the applicant was that the land was being used by the inhabitants of the village for common purposes, and, therefore, he was a necessary party. The learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for parties allowed the application.

What has weighed with the trial Court in granting relief to the applicant is that the property in dispute is recorded in the revenue record as Jumla Malkan and Digar Haqdaran and is being used by the villagers for common purposes. The learned trial Judge consequently observed that the applicant, who is a right holder in the village, was a necessary and proper party. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 2 was neither a necessary nor a proper party in a suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from interfering in his possession. He further submitted that he is not seeking any relief whatsoever against the applicantrespondent No. 2 and thus he is neither a necessary nor a proper party.

I have considered the matter and in my view the applicant/respondent No. 2 is neither a necessary nor a proper party in a suit filed by the plaintiff wherein he has sought permanent injunction against the Gram Panchayat from interfering in his possession except in due course of law. The consideration which prevailed with the trial Court appears to me to be totally irrelevant in view of the nature of the suit proceedings before the trial Court. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not claim any relief against the applicantrespondent and even otherwise the interest of the applicant is not likely to be affected in any way by the decree which may ultimately be passed in the suit.

It is by now well settled that normally plaintiff is the master of his own suit and nobody can be ordered to be impleaded as a defendant against his wishes unless the Court finds that the presence of such a person was necessary or that such a person is at least a proper party. In case a necessary or a proper party is not impleaded the plaintiff runs. The risk of not impleading such a party as his interest is likely to be adversely affected and he runs the risk of his suit being dismissed on that count.

For the reasons recorded above, I allow this revision petition setaside the impugned order, dismiss the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code but with no order as to costs.