Bachan Singh vs Teja Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.

C.M. No. 27059-C-II of 2010

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Case:

Bachan Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 01.09.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha, thereby dismissing application Annexure P-2 moved by the Petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC (in short - CPC) for impleading the Petitioner as party to the suit, which has been instituted by Respondent No. 1 against Respondents Nos. 2 to 6.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the case file.

The Petitioner has alleged that he is brother of Mohinder Singh, whose inheritance is to be adjudicated upon in the suit and therefore, the Petitioner is necessary party to the suit.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 has alleged in the suit that there was family settlement between him and Mohinder Singh. The Petitioner himself filed suit No. 116 of 01.05.2003, which was dismissed on 02.09.2008 and appeal preferred by the Petitioner in the said case is still pending. However, the Petitioner, in his application Annexure P-2, concealed this material fact. Moreover, the Petitioner filed the said other suit mentioning his name as Gurbachan Singh, whereas in the instant case, he has mentioned his name as Bachan Singh. The instant application has been filed after six years of filing of the suit, although it is not the case of the Petitioner that he was earlier not aware of the pendency of the suit. On the other hand, the Petitioner is close relative of Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 as Inder Singh - Defendant No. 2, who is father of Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1, is real brother of the Petitioner. It is thus manifest that the instant application Annexure P-2 has been moved by the Petitioner at the instance of Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1, who has not opposed the application for impleading the Petitioner as party to the suit. It may be added that any decree passed in the suit shall not be binding on the Petitioner, who is not party to the suit, and therefore, his rights would not be prejudiced in any manner.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.