Paramjeet Kaur Daughter of Shri Jagdish Singh vs The Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief

The above captioned three writ petitions arise out of the

three separate yet identical orders passed on the same date, i.e.,

26.07.2016, whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge & Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar

has rejected petitioners'' application, seeking their impleadment in

the three civil suits filed by the plaintiff - Jagdish Singh.

As all the three writ petitions involve common question of

facts and law, the same are being decided by this common order,

however, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11231/2017 are

being taken into consideration.

The plaintiff - Jagdish Singh filed a suit for cancellation of a

registered sale deed dated 04.09.2015 alleging it to be got

executed fraudulently. In the said suit, the petitioners, being

daughter and son of the plaintiff - Jagdish Singh filed an

application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure

for being impleaded as plaintiffs.

The learned Trial Court, vide its order impugned dated

26.07.2016 has rejected the petitioners'' application by observing

that the petitioners-applicants, being Paramjeet Kaur and Amritpal

Singh are the daughter and son respectively of the plaintiff-

Jagdish Singh, whose interests cannot be said to be separate than

the interest of the plaintiff.

Mr. Himmat Jagga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioners, challenging the order dated 26.07.2016 submitted

that the petitioners are having interest in the property in question,

for which, they are necessary and proper party.

Having considered the arguments advanced at Bar by Mr.

Jagga and upon perusal of the record of this case, this Court does

not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned dated

26.07.2017.

Petitioners are merely daughter and son of the plaintiff, who

is already pursuing the suit for enforcement of his rights.

Petitioners have neither any conflict nor independent interest.

Petitioners'' impleadment in the suit is thus unwarranted.

This Court in its judgment dated 03.10.2017 in S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No. 11782/2017 titled as "Udai Lal & Ors. Vs. Shyam Lal & Ors." has rejected identical contention raised by the

said petitioners, while observing as under:-

"The reasons for which the sale deeds under

consideration have been challenged is that sale deed

of the subject land has been fraudulently got

executed; for which the presence of the petitioners

cannot be said to be necessary.

It is not in dispute that the sale deeds in

question were executed or got executed by the

plaintiffs'' father. The plaintiffs have not challenged the

same on the ground that Nathu, their father had no

right to alienate the ancestral property dehors their

rights.

In the aforesaid factual background, this Court is

of the firm view that the petitioners are neither

necessary nor proper parties in the present case. The

petitioners presence even for supporting the cause of

the plaintiffs is uncalled for.

Test to determine as to whether an applicant is

necessary party is that. "The rights of the applicant is

likely to be adversely or prejudicially effected; if the

suit is decreed, and not that if the suit is dismissed".

In other words if an applicant''s rights are likely to be

adversely affected, as a result of decreeing the suit,

he can be impleaded as a party, not otherwise.

Coming to the judgment of this Court rendered in

Baijnath (supra), it is to be noticed that the applicant

therein being Legal representative sought her

impleadement as a defendant in place of the deceased

defendant Ram Dayal. In such situation, this Court has

held that the rights of the said applicant - petitioner

were likely to be adversely effected and hence she was

held to be a necessary party.

The other judgment cited by the petitioner in

case of Gram Panchayat, Garhi Vs. Dharamvir & Ors.,

reiterated the basic principle governing the

adjudication of application under Order I Rule 10 of

the Code of Civil Procedure. However the same are not

applicable to the facts of the present case, which are

peculiar.

In view of above, this Court does not find any

illegality or infirmity in the order dated 02.06.2017

passed by the learned Trial Court and the writ petition

filed by the petitioners is therefore dismissed."

In view of the discussion above and following the judgment

aforesaid, the present writ petitions are also dismissed.

One copy of this order be placed in record of each of the

cases.