Vidhya Chawla vs State of Haryana

V.K. Jhanji, J. (Oral)

This revision petition has been directed against order dated 17.5.1991 passed by Sub Judge IInd Class, Karnal, allowing the application of the State Bank of India under Order 1 rule 10 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, for impleading Bank as defendant to the suit.

The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against State of Haryana through Collector, Karnal, as well as Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karnal, claiming that she is owner in possession of the property in dispute and has entered into an agreement to sell with one Nirmaljeet Chawla. She further claimed that recovery proceedings initiated by defendant No. 2. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karnal, are not binding upon her. It was also claimed by her that she has no concern whatsoever with the Society namely Adarsh Agricultural Implement Cooperative Society, and any liability of the said society cannot be fastened on her.

The suit is being contested by defendant. During the pendency of the suit, State Bank of India filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, for impleading the Bank as a necessary party. It was stated in the application that the Bank had advanced a loan of Rs. 20,000/ to Adarsh Agricultural Implement Cooperative Society on 13.10.1970 which was subsequently enhanced and the present outstanding amount comes to about Rs. four lacs. It was further alleged that the house in dispute was equitably mortgaged with the Bank. The application was contested by the plaintiff on the ground that State Bank of India is not a necessary party to the suit as no relief is being claimed against the Bank. Moreover, plaintiff being dominus litis, cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not wish to fight and against whom, he does not claim any relief. The learned trial Court allowed the application of the Bank. This order of the trial Court has been impugned in the civil revision.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the revision petition.

Plaintiff in the suit is claiming declaration that she is owner in possession of property in dispute and the property is free from all encumbrances. She has further claimed to have entered into an agreement to sell with one Nirmaljeet Chawla. State Bank of India on the other hand is claiming that the property had been equitably mortgaged at the time when the loan was advanced to the Society. There is no disputed about the proposition that plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be compelled to fight against a per son against whom he does not claim any relief, but this is not an absolute rule. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether a person is a necessary or proper party to the suit. As far as facts of the present case are concerned, the very fact that the plaintiff is claiming declaration that the property is free from all encumbrances and on the other hand, Bank is claiming that the property was equitably mortgaged at the time when loan was advanced, thus the trial Court was justified in impleading State Bank of India as a party to the suit. This was done not only to avoid multiplicity of proceedings but also to enable the Court to adjudicate the matter in controversy completely and effectually.

Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.