Harwant Singh vs Smt. Guro and Others

Swatanter Kumar, J.—Challenge in this Civil revision is to the Order dated 7.8.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, vide which he dismissed the application filed by the applicant (petitioner herein) under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for being impleaded as party to the proceedings.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the applicant was a necessary party to the proceedings as such the learned court below should have allowed the application and it apparently amounts to an error of jurisdiction on the face of the record justifying the interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

In order to examine this contention, reference to the basic facts would be necessary. Harwant Singh-applicant had filed the application that Guro (now deceased) had entered into an agreement to sell regarding the property in dispute in favour of the applicant. In furtherance to the agreement to sell, possession of the property was delivered to the applicant of the entire land, as total sale consideration was paid. There was other litigation pending in relation to the same property. Smt. Guro had filed a suit against Gurdial Singh and others for declaration to the effect that she was the owner in possession of the land and for injunction. This suit was contested by the defendants in the suit. The applicant avers that the heirs of said Smt. Guro are not pursuing the matter properly and are likely to collude with the defendants, while the applicant has an interest in the property, as such he is a necessary party to these proceedings.

This suit was filed on 23.2.1988. The present application has been filed after a lapse of nearly 10 years. If the applicant is in possession of the suit land, obviously none of his interest can be affected in the present decree. Firstly no relief from the decree has been prayed against the applicant and secondly he claims to be in possession of the property on the basis of part performance of the agreement to sell upon payment of consideration. In the light of both these factors, the interest of the applicant, if at all, is independent of the controversy involved in the present case. The applicant has an independent cause of action and he could always institute appropriate legal proceedings, if so advised, against the persons who cause cloud on his interest in the property or possession. The findings in the present Civil Suit cannot in any way affect the interest, title or possession of the present petitioner.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon Krishan Lal and Another Vs. Sudesh Kumari and Others, , Amritsar Diocese Trust Association Vs. Mrs. Alice and Others, and Babulal Vs. Raj Kumar and Others, , to argue that the application ought to have been allowed, while the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has relied upon the cases titled as Chand Kishore and Anr. v. Satish Kumar apd other 1984 P.L.J. 127, Krishan Lal and Ors. v. Tek Chand and Ors. 1986 90 P.L.R. 616, Ved Parkash Vs. Amar Singh and Another, and Hazura Singh Vs. Sukhdev Singh and Another, , to argue that the present petition is liable to be rejected, as the application of the petitioner has been rightly dismissed by the learned trial court.

There cannot be any straight jacket formula for determining such an application. Every case has to be dealt with on its own merit keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that case. But one basic principle is that the applicant to succeed in such an application must be a necessary or a proper party to the proceedings and in whose absence the Court cannot effectively decide and determine the matters in controversy. Applying the principles enunciated by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishan Lal (supra), the applicant has no case. The interest, if any, of the applicant can be protected by him in his own proceedings. The plaintiff is dominus litus of the proceeding and he cannot be compelled to contest against a party against which he does not wish to contest. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show as to how the presence of the applicant is, in any case, necessary before the Court for proper determination.

I am unable to see any error or jurisdiction in the impugned order, which would justify interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, this revision petition is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Interim Order dated 17.9.1996 stands vacated and the learned trial Court will proceed in accordance with law.