Joginder Singh vs Ajaib Singh and Others

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This revision petition is against the order of Sub Judge dated 12.12.1994 allowing respondents application to be impleaded as party in the pending suit.

It is the case of the petitioner that Atma Singh, his father, was owner of the property. Since he was accused of murdering his father and convicted to a life imprisonment, he was divested of his right to inherit and so the property left by Atma Singh was shared by respondents Jaswinder Kaur and Gurvinder Kaur, his sisters and Ajaib Singh and Jaswant Singh-the applicants, his brothers, ordered to be impleaded. Petitioner has made no grievance to it. It is subsequently that petitioner filed the present suit against his sisters in which the present application has been filed by respondent No. 1 and 2 to be impleaded as necessary/proper parties which has been allowed by the Court.

It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner being dominus litus cannot be compelled to implead any third party. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are neither necessary nor proper parties. No relief is being sought against them and so the order passed by the trial court is unsustainable.

Defending the order passed, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents urged that their presence is essential for effectually and completely adjudicating upon all the questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. According to the counsel, Jaswinder Kaur had already been restrained from alienating her share in the disputed land by the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda. So, on facts and circumstances of the case the presence of the applicants would not only cut short the litigation but also will be help full in effectually determining the controversy raised by the petitioner. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions reported as Bharat Singh and Ors. v. Om Parkash and Ors. 1984 P.L.J. 102 and Ved Kumar v. Smt. Raj Rani Bhati and Ors. 1993 1 P.L.R. 531.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the impugned order of the trial Court. Broad facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, the suit has been filed by the petitioner against his own sisters. Even if the suit is decreed it does not effect the rights of the applicants in any manner. As regards the plea of the respondents that decretal of suit is likely to lead the multiplicity of litigation is also devoid of substance. Even if be accepted that Jaswinder Kaur has entered into some sort of an agreement with the applicants-respondents and the Court has restrained Jaswinder Kaur from alienating her share yet the same has no bearing upon the matter to be adjudicated in the present suit. Respondent applicants are neither necessary not proper parties. The decisions cited by the respondents are not on peculiar facts of the case in Bharat Singh''s case,1 (supra) no doubt it has been held that there is no universal rule of law that a third party cannot be impleaded to a pending litigation but all the same it depends upon the circumstances of each case. The Court on facts came to the conclusion that any decree declaring warabandi in the suit land would affect the rights of the petitioners. In these circumstances, the Court found it necessary to implead the person as party in the suit. Similarly, in Ved Kumar''s case (supra) the persons were ordered to be impleaded as necessary/proper party on the short ground that they had paid full amount of consideration as per agreement to mortgage and so the Court found it equitable to implead such person as party. Ratio of the above two judgments has no applicability on the facts of the present case.

Thus, I am of the view that the trial Court has erred in law in ordering impleading of the respondents-the applicants who are strangers. Accordingly, I accept the revision petition and set aside the order. Name of the respondents-applicants be deleted from the array of respondents and the matter be decided expeditiously without any further delay.