Sh. Harkarnail Singh and Another vs Shri Ram Kumar Proprietor M/s Naveen Timber, Manimajra. U.T. Chandigarh

S.P. Goyal, J.—The Petitioners filed this suit for possession of the land is dispute and mesne profits against the Respondent. To establish their claim, they got a Local Commissioner appointed, who reported that the land in dispute was in possession of one Prem Singh and not that of the Respondent. The Petitioners then moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleading Prem Singh as one of the Defendants, which was declined by the trial Court on the ground that no relief has been claimed against the said person Aggrieved thereby, the Plaintiffs have come up in this Revision.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has vehemently contended that as the Local Commissioner had reported Prem Singh to be in possession, so it had become necessary for the proper disposal of the suit to implead him as a party to the suit. In support of his contention, he has relied on Sham Lal v. Mst. Jagwanti 1976 Rev LR 79, Parbati Sham Achary Vs. Smt. Manasi Devi, Banarsi Dass v. Panna Lal (1968) 70 P.L.R. 451. There can be no dispute with the principle of law enunciated in the said decisions, but as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Arjan Singh and Ors. v. Kartar Singh A.I.R.1975 P&H.184 , before a person can be added as a party, it must be shown that it was necessary to do so to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the points in the suit. As is evident from a bare perusal of the application filed by the Petitioners, they still maintain that Prem Singh is neither in possession of the suit property nor he has anything to do therewith Obviously, no relief possibly can be claimed against Prem Singh in view of the said averment The learned Counsel, however, urged that though the application has not been properly drafted, it has become necessary for the Petitioners to claim a relief against Prem Singh, which they will do when he is impleaded as a party, it is not possible to subscribe to this view. Before Prem Singh can be ordered to be impleaded as a party, it has to be shown that the suit cannot be effectually disposed of without impleading him. The correctness of the report of the commissioner is being disputed by the Plaintiffs and they still maintain that Prem Singh is neither in possession nor he has anything to do with the property in dispute. Prem Singh in these circumstances, cannot be said to be a necessary party so far as the Plaintiffs are concerned This petition, therefore, must fal(sic) and is hereby dismissed. However, the dismissal of this application would not debar the Plaintiffs from making a proper application for amendment of the pleadings and the impleading of Prem Singh as a party after making out a proper case for such a relief. No costs.