Dalvir Singh vs Gurdarshan Singh

Swatanter Kumar, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 6.8.1998 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barnala, vide which

the learned Judge dismissed an application filed by the applicants under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for being impteaded as defendants in the suit.

Plaintiff Gurdarshan Singh and others had filed a suit against Ram Singh and 11 others for declaration that they are owners of half share of the suit

property along with defendants No. 3 to 12 being co-owners of the property as legal representatives and heirs of the deceased Harjinder Kaur

widow of Kararn Singh. This suit was instituted in the year 1997. Duringthe pendency of the suit, the applicants filed the aforesaid application

averring that Harjinder Kaur alias Hariind Kaur alias Harchand Kaur had executed a will in their favour dated 24.8,1994 and she had bequeathed

her entire property including the suit property in their favour. They claimed to be owners in possession of the suit land and as such prayed for being

impleaded as defendants in the suit.

The application was contested by the defendants. Vide order dated 6.8.1998 the application was dismissed by the learned trial Court, while

dismissing the application held as under :-

It is settled principle that a party to the suit must be a necessary party to adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in suit. But in the present

case the respondents have challenged the judgment and decree dated 4.11.1995. The decree was suffered in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2.

Thus the suit can be adjudicated properly and all questions involved in the suit can be settled in the absence of the petitioners. The petitioners can

file a separate suit against the defendants No. 1 and 2 by claiming Ihemselves owners of the suit property on the basis of the will dated 24 8.1994.

But in the present case, in my opinion they are not necessary parties.

In addition to the above reasons, the learned trial Court also noticed that after the death of Harjinder Kaur wife of Karam Singh, who died on

8.5.1997, the applicants never lodged any claim with the revenue authorities on the basis of the alleged will dated 24.8.1994.

The present suit is pending since 1997. There is no explanation, whatsoever, rendered on record as to why these applicants did not take any

effective steps either in the present suit or before the revenue authorities, as noticed. That apart, the applicants have to show that they are

necessary parties for determination of the controversy involved in the present suit. Except that, they claim an interest in the property on the strength

of the will. Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to show as to what possible interest is likely to be prejudiced within the imitated scope

of the present suit. The controversy in the present suit is a very limited one. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the case of Hoshiar

Singh v. Gurnam Singh and others 1991(2) RL R 217 and Mohan Singh and others v. Angrej Kaur and others 1997(2) P.L.R. 166 : 1997(3)

RRR 58 (P&h) to contend that the application ought to have been allowed.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length I am of the considered view that the application has been rightly rejected by the

learned trial Court. Mere fact that decision of some issue may affect the ipplicants to some extent, by itself would not be a sufficient ground for

impleadment of a party as a necessary party to the suit. Plaintiffs are domimts-litus and the Court must satisfy itself that the presence of the

applicants is absolutely necessary before the court to adjudicate and decide the controversies before it finally. A party which may appeur to be

proper party, would not become a necessary party just because it does not wish to take recourse to an independent action which may be available

to it in law and wishes to intermingle its rights arising out of completely independent and different document than the one which is a matter of

controversy in the suit between the parties pending before a Court. It will be appropriate that the applicants take recourse to its own proceedings

rather than getting impleaded as a party to the present suit, which already has considerably advanced in last more than three years.

Resultantly, the Civil revision is dismissed without any order as to costs.

Revision dismissed.