Gopal Screw Company vs Hindustan Expo. and Others

Sat Pal, J.—This petition has been directed against the order dated 30.7.1997, passed by Civil judge (Jr. Div), Ludhiana. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has allowed the application filed by applicant M/s. Hindustan Expo, under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. to become a party in the suit. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents.

Mr. Gurcharan Dass learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not sought any relief against the applicant/respondent and as such the learned trial court was not right in allowing the application filed by the respondent-applicant. He further submits that the plaintiff is the dominus litus of the suit and a party cannot be allowed to be impleaded against the wish of the plaintiff. The learned counsel also submits that in any case if the applicant is allowed to become a party, then the applicant should be permitted to join the case from the date when application was filed by him and de novo trial of the suit cannot be allowed while allowing such an application. In support of his submission the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Anokhe Lal v. Radhamohan Bansal and Co. 1997(1) C.C.C. 496 (S.C.) .

Learned counsel further submits that the land, for which the applicant wants to become a party, was allotted to him by the Director of Industry subject to the condition that he would withdraw the suit and since the applicant has failed to withdraw the suit, his application should not have been allowed.

He also submits that the applicant also had filed a suit for permanent injunction and in that case, the relief of interim injunction had already been declined to him on 8.8.1995 by the learned trial Court, against the petitioner.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner end having perused the impugned order, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court. Admittedly, land 10 x 8 feet which, according to the plaintiff, is subject matter of the suit, was allotted to the applicant by the Directorate of Industry vide letter dated 4.4.1994. It is true that the allotment was subject to the condition that the applicant would withdraw the suit filed against the Director of Industry as well as the plaintiff but that point should not come in the way for allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 as this point can be gone into when the case is decided on merits. It is also correct that the plaintiff is the master of the suit and in the present case he has not sought any relief against the applicant. But since the applicant is allottee of a piece of land which according to him, is the subject matter of the present litigation, the presence of the applicant appears to be necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute. In this connection, reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Aliji Monoji and Co. Vs. Lalji Mavji and others, .

As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the applicant can be allowed to join the proceedings only from the date when the application under order 1 Rule 10 was filed. I do not find any merit in this contention keeping in view the fact of the present case. Admittedly, even the issues have been framed in the present case and the question of de novo trial in the present case does not arise. In view of these facts, the judgment in the case of Anokhe Lal (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.