Sobha Dass vs Thakurdwara Almauraf Dyal Wala and Others

K.C. Puri, J.—This is a revision petition preferred by petitioner against the order dated 7.12.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamunanagar at Jagadhri vide which the application moved by the present petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC ( in short - C.P.C.) for arraying him as party in a suit titled as Thakurdwara Almaruf Dyal Wala through its Mahant Mohatmim and Gaddi Nashin Raghubir Dass Chela of Shri Mahant Madan Mohan Dass v. Sham Dass was dismissed.

Thakurdwara Almaruf Dyal Wala through its Mahant Mohatmim and Gaddi Nashin Raghubir Dass Chela of Shri Mahant Madan Mohan Dass filed a suit against Sham Dass and others with respect of property of Thakurdwara Almaruf Dyal Wala. The said suit was filed in the year 2000. The present petitioner Sobha Dass moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for arraying him as party with the allegation that Sobha Dass-applicant is Chela of Mahant Sham Dass and was appointed as Mahant on 14.1.1998 on the occasion of Makkar Sankranti in the presence of Sadhu Samaj and Mahanats of different Deras and customary ceremonies were performed. Mahant Sham Dass is managing the Thakurdwara Dayalwala Mandir. Mahant Sham Dass has executed some documents in his favour. So, he is a necessary party in the suit preferred by Thakurdwara Almaruf Dyal Wala through Raghubir Dass.

The said application was resisted and ultimately was dismissed holding that plaintiff is a dominus litis and that present petitioner had already filed suit for declaration and injunction. The learned trial Court also observed that in the suit filed by Thakurdwara Almaruf Dyal Wala, Sham Dass defendant No. 1 filed a written statement admitting the claim of plaintiff Raghbir Dass. Thereafter an application for amendment of written statement was filed by Mahant Sham Dass seeking to withdraw the admission and it has been further observed that present application is a child brain of said Shobha Dass as he has failed to get the written statement amended.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the rights of the petitioner would be seriously effected by not arraying him as party. It has been further contended that when the person is a necessary party in that case, he should be arrayed as respondent. Mere delay in filing the application is not a ground to discard his case. To support this contention, he has relied upon authority Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra 1995(1) CCC 531 (S.C.)

Notice of the revision petition was given to the plaintiff and respondents in the present case but none has appeared. So, in these circumstances the case has to be decided on the basis of the records.

Thakurdwara Almaruf Dyal Wala filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from peaceful possession of the plaintiff as Mahant Mohatmim and Gaddi Nashin Thakurdwara Almaruf Dyal Wala. The said suit was filed against Sham Dass ex- Mahanat Chela Bharat Dass, Thakurdwara Dayal Wala, Bharitiya Swami and Pritam Dass Bawa. The present petitioner has moved an application for arraying him as a party claiming himself to be the chela of Mahant Sham Dass. The present petitioner has placed on file copy of plaint Annexure P-1. From the perusal of the same, it is revealed that he has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the chela of Mahanat Sham Dass and Sham Dass has no right to transfer or relinquish the Mohatmimship of Thakurdwara Almaruf Dyal Wala through its Mahant Mohatmim and Gaddi Nashin Raghubir Dass Chela of Shri Mahant Madan Mohan Dass of Thakurdwara Almaruf Dyal Wala in favour of Raghbir Dass. The consequential relief of permanent injunction has also been claimed. So, his rights flow being the chela of Sham Dass. The learned Trial Court in the impugned order has observed that plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be compelled to contest against a party against whom he does not want to contest. It has been further observed that no relief whatsoever has been claimed against the present petitioner and as such he is not a necessary party. It has been further observed by the trial Court that in a suit preferred by Raghbir Dass, Mahant Sham Dass filed written statement admitting claim of plaintiff and thereafter moved an application for amendment to withdraw the admission. The said prayer has been declined and the present application has been filed at belated stage by the present petitioner at the instance of said Sham Dass. The present petitioner has already filed suit against Raghbir Dass and Sham Dass and his rights can only be determined in that case. Otherwise also, the application is at a belated stage. The above said finding returned by the trial Court appeals to the reason and has to be accepted.

So, far as the authority Anil Kumar Singh''s case (supra) is concerned, the ratio of that authority is rather in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. In that case, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in a suit for specific performance was filed, so as to amend the plaint to add a party. It was held that a person who got the property by independent decree and not a party to the agreement to sell is not a necessary party and the application was dismissed, which order was upheld by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The finding of the trial Court that the present application is simply to help Sham Dass defendant to wriggle out the admission, appeal to the reason.

So, in these circumstances, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.

A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.