Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGMAL SINGH versus M/S AFRIK FARM PVT. LTD. & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JAGMAL SINGH v. M/S AFRIK FARM PVT. LTD. & Anr - CR-4803-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 213 (28 October 2005)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

......

Civil Revision No.4803 of 2005 (O&M)

....

Date of decision:28.11.2005

Jagmal Singh

.....Petitioner

v.

M/s Afrik Farm Pvt. Ltd. and another

.....Respondents

....

Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.

.....

S.S. Saron, J.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 11.8.2005 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri whereby the application filed by the defendant No.1-petitioner for impleading the State Bank of Patiala (SMA), Yamunanagar through its Manager as C.R. No.4803/2005(O&M)

[2]

defendant No.3 in the suit filed by Afrik Farm Private Limited (respondent No.1) has been dismissed.

The plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit against the defendants for declaration under Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 for the correction of record of rights i.e. Jamabandis and Girdawris subsequent to the Jamabandi for the year 1993-94 till date of institution of the suit i.e. 24.3.2004 and for possession of land measuring 57 Bighas 11 Biswas as detailed in the head note of the plaint situated within the revenue estate of Mauza Rampur Gainda Hadbast No.36, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar according to Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 and for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1- petitioner from changing the nature of the suit property in any manner and/or creating any kind of lien or charge thereupon or transferring it or any part thereof through any mode of alienation. Besides, damages and compensation for unauthorized and illegal use thereof approximately at Rs.2,000/- per acre per crop or any other amount assessed by the Court has been claimed. During the pendency of the suit the defendant No.1- petitioner sought impleadment of State Bank of Patiala (SMA), Yamunanagar through its Manager as defendant No.3. It was alleged that the plaintiff (respondent No.1) has availed the loan of Rs.49,68,000/- from C.R. No.4803/2005(O&M)

[3]

the bank and entries in this regard were also incorporated in the revenue record. It was further alleged that defendant No.1-petitioner in his written statement had pleaded that he has become owner of the disputed land by way of adverse possession and therefore, he is not liable to pay any debt to the bank. In the circumstances, it was prayed that bank is a necessary and proper party for the adjudication of the case.

The plaintiff (respondent No.1) filed reply to the application and took preliminary objections regarding locus standi. Besides, plaintiff (respondent No.1) denied adverse possession of defendant No.1-petitioner with respect to the suit land and also denied the other averments as made in the application and he prayed for dismissal of the same.

The learned Civil Judge (Senior Judge) vide his impugned order dated 11.8.2005 has observed that the State Bank of Patiala, Yamunanagar is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit.

Accordingly, the application of defendant No.1-petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was dismissed. The said order, as already noticed, is assailed by way of the present petition.

Shri R.S. Mamli, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Bank of Patiala, Yamunanagar is a necessary and proper party in the case. Besides, it is contended that defendant No.1- C.R. No.4803/2005(O&M)

[4]

petitioner has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. However, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is taking steps to defeat the rights of defendant No.1-petitioner by taking loan from the State Bank of Patiala at Yamunanagar. Therefore, it is contended that the said Bank is liable to be impleaded as a party so that the fact that loan is being taken by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is in the knowledge of the State Bank of Patiala, Yamunanagar. This, it is contended, would avoid multiplicity of litigation.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, I find no merit in the same. As has already been noticed, the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration for correcting revenue records i.e. Jamabandis and Girdawris subsequent to the year 1993-94 and for possession of land measuring 57 Bighas 11 Biswas as detailed in the head note of the petition. Besides, a prayer for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from changing the nature of suit property in any manner whatsoever and/or creating any kind of lien or charge has also been made. The defendant No.1-petitioner in case he has any right against the State Bank of Patiala (SMA), Yamunanagar he can claim the same by seeking appropriate remedy. The case of defendant No.1-petitioner is that he has become owner of the suit C.R. No.4803/2005(O&M)

[5]

land by way of adverse possession. It is for him to show that he has perfected his title to the suit land by way of adverse possession in accordance with law. However, he cannot at the same time seek the impleadment of the State Bank of Patiala as a defendant so as to compel the plaintiff (respondent No.1) to contest and fight against whom he may not be wanting to. It is well known that the plaintiff is the dominus litus and the master of the suit and he cannot be compelled to contest and fight against a party that he does not want to. In case the defendant No.1- petitioner has any claim against the said bank he can maintain a suit independently. Even otherwise the rights of the co-defendants inter se would not be determined in a suit filed by the plaintiff (respondent No.1) as issue in that regard would not be framed and the issues would be framed on the basis of pleadings of the plaintiff and defendants only.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

November 28, 2005. (S.S. Saron)

Judge

hsp


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.