Gram Panchayat vs Santo Bai and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.—Gram Panchayat has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 28.5.2012 passed by the trial court thereby dismissing application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC (in short, CPC) for impleading the petitioner as party to the suit which has been instituted by respondent no. 1-plaintiff Santo Bai against respondent no. 2 defendant Surjit Singh. Respondent no. 1 has alleged in the suit that he is owner of the suit land whereas respondent no. 2 defendant is in unauthorized possession thereof. Accordingly, respondent no. 1-plaintiff has sought possession of the suit land from defendant no. 1-respondent no. 2.

Petitioner in its application alleged that petitioner Gram Panchayat is owner of the suit land and therefore, it is necessary party to the suit.

Learned trial court has dismissed petitioner''s application for impleading it as party to the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner being owner of the suit land is necessary party to the suit. On the other hand, counsel for respondent no. 1-plaintiff contended that there is nothing on record to prima facie depict that petitioner Gram Panchayat is owner of the suit land.

I have carefully considered the matter. Learned trial court also accepted the aforesaid contention on behalf of plaintiff that there is nothing on record to prima facie depict that petitioner is owner of the suit land. However, for deciding application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, prima facie evidence in favour of the applicant sought to be impleaded as party to the suit is not to be looked into. On the other hand, it has to be seen if the applicant is necessary or proper party to the suit or not.

In the instant case, initially respondent no. 2 had instituted suit against respondent no. 1 for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed holding respondent no. 2 to be in possession of the suit land. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 has filed the instant suit for possession of the suit land.

Another suit had been filed by respondent no. 1 and others against the Gram Panchayat seeking declaration of ownership of the suit land and other land. The said suit was decreed by the trial court. Case of the petitioner is that the said decree was obtained by respondent no. 1 and others by fraud because Surjan Singh who defended that suit on behalf of Gram Panchayat as Sarpanch was not even Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. Gram Panchayat filed first appeal against judgment and decree of the trial court and the same was dismissed by first appellate court, but in regular second appeal, this Court remanded the said lis to first appellate court. However, thereafter said first appeal was dismissed in default but the said order is under challenge at the hands of Gram Panchayat in another revision pending in this Court.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is necessary to protect the interest of the petitioner Gram Panchayat. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, I find that Gram Panchayat is necessary as well as proper party to the suit because otherwise valuable huge chunk of land may be grabbed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in connivance with each other. On the other hand, if Gram Panchayat is impleaded as party to the suit, respondent no. 1 plaintiff would not suffer any loss or injury whereas if Gram Panchayat is not impleaded as party to the suit, it is likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury as its interest may be adversely effected by the result of the suit.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that impugned order passed by the trial court suffers from illegality and jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. Application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be impleaded as defendant no. 2 to the suit which has been instituted by respondent no. 1 against respondent no. 2. Nothing observed hereinbefore shall have any bearing on the other suit which had been instituted by respondent no. 1 and others against the petitioner.