Amritsar Diocese Trust Association vs Mrs. Alice and Others

Sat Pal, J.—This petition has been directed against the order dated 15th October, 1996, passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jullundur. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has rejected the application of the petitioner-applicant filed by it under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for being impleaded as one of the co-defendants in the suit pending before the learned trial court.

It may be noted here that the suit has been filed by four persons seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs from exercising the right of worship in the Saint Luke Church in the Jullundur Cantt. It may be relevant to point out here that the two defendants impleaded in the suit are individuals, namely Babu Masih and Jalal Masih. The applicant/petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of the Church and the graveyard, where the plaintiffs have sought injunction to use those places. It may also be relevant to point out here that R.F.A. No. 2567 of 1992 is already pending in this court and according to the learned counsel for the parties, in those proceedings the applicant is a party.

The only objection raised by Mr. Rawal, learned counsel for the respondents is that in the present case the title of the property has not been challenged by the plaintiffs and as such the applicant-Association cannot be allowed to be impleaded as a party. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal v. Municipal Committee, Greater Bombay 1992 (1) R R R 515 and a judgment of Delhi High Court in Evangelical Church of India v. North India Outerach Society and Ors. (1997) 117 P.L.R.D. 55.

I, however, do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is not disputed before me that a decree has already been passed in favour of the applicant that they are the owners in possession of the suit property and that decree is the subject matter of the Regular First Appeal mentioned herein above. In view of these facts, it is clear that the applicant is not a stranger but is a party which is directly involved with regard to the suit, property. From the impugned order, I find that even the plaintiffs did not raise any objection to the application filed by the applicant for being impleaded as a party.

As regards the case of Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal (supra) I find that this judgment is not of any assistance to the learned counsel for the respondents. In fact it has been held in this case that a party is a necessary party in case held in this case that party shall be bound by the result of the action. In the present case, if the plaintiffs succeed, they will get the right to use the suit property as worshipper or in other capacity. That is why the plaintiffs chose not to oppose the application of the applicant. The decision of the Delhi High Court in the case Evangelical Church of India (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as, as stated herein above, the applicant is likely to be affected by the decision of the learned trial court in the main suit. For the reasons recorded herein above, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15th October, 1996, passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Jullundur, is set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the applicant under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. before the learned trial court stands allowed. It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove, shall not have any bearing on merits of the case.