Rampat vs Mandir Thakur Dwara at Suhra and ors.

J.V. Gupta, J.

This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated March 12, 1987, whereby the application under Order I rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter called the Code), filed on behalf of Shri Mandir Thakur Dwara for impleading it as a party to the suit was allowed.

The plaintiffpetitioner claiming himself to be the owner in possession of the suit land filed the suit or the grant of the injunction against defendants Balbir and others on the allegations that they were illegally interfering with his possession. In the said suit, an application was moved by Shri Mandir Thakur Dwara for impleading it as a party to the suit on the ground that the suit property belonged to it and was in its possession. The said application was contested on behalf of the plaintiff. However, the trial Court on the basis of certain documents allowed the said application.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not seeking any relief against the said institution and, therefore, in the suit filed by him for the grant of the permanent injunction, the said institution could not be added as a necessary party. Moreover, argued the learned counsel, the plaintiff claimed himself to be in possession of the suit property. Therefore, any title set up by the said institution could not be decided in the suit filed by the plaintiff. Thus, contended the learned counsel, the application under Order 1 rule 10 of the Code, was liable to be dismissed. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Krishan Lal v. Tek Chand, 1986(2) Punjab Law Reporter 616 : 1986 R.R.R. 30.

After hearing the learned counsel for the partes, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.

In the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction, the plaintiff petitioner is not seeking any relief against the said institution, rather his claim is that he is in possession of the suit property. In case the Mandir Thakur Dwara claims itself to be the owner of the suit property, that cannot be decided in the present suit. It is not disputed that any decree passed in the Suit for the grant of the permanent injunction will not be binding upon the Mandir Thakur Dwara because no relief is being sought by him against it therein.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the application under Order I rule 10 of the Code, filed by the respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs.