Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Amit Uppal & Anr v. Surinder Mohan Arora & another - CR-4248-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 5469 (10 August 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

C.R. No.4248 of 2006

Date of decision:24-08-2006

Amit Uppal and another ..........Petitioners Versus

Surinder Mohan Arora & another ..........Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma
Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.1.


2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),Amritsar, vide which the application moved by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading them as parties to the suit has been declined.

The application was moved by the applicant-petitioners herein for being impleaded as a party to the suit on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein has filed another suit for declaration and permanent injunction titled as Surinder Mohan Arora Vs. Amit Uppal and others in which Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amrtisar is also a party as defendant No.4. In the said suit, a specific plea has been taken by the applicant-petitioners that they are owners in possession of he land i.e.

plot measuring 262 sq. yards falling in Khasra Nos. 613 and 618 which is a part of plot No.278 of which the total area is 592 sq. yards situated in the area of Tungabala Urban, Shastri Nagar, Tehsil and District Amritsar. The said plot has been purchased by way of two registered sale deeds for valuable consideration on 12-07-2000. It was claimed that they were in lawful possession of the property as owners thereof.

It was the further case of the applicant-petitioners that after the purchase of the said plot, they had applied for sanction of plan for rasising construction from Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and 'No Objection Certificate' has been issued by the Improvement Trust, Amritsar. The case of the applicant-petitioner is that on account of mala fide intention to illegally and unlawfully grab the property of the petitioners, the plaintiff respondent has raised a wall illegally in order to block the passage of the applicant-petitioners and accordingly a report was made to the Police on 17th of September 2002 and FIR No. 365 dated 19-10-2002 under Sections 506/511/379/447 IPC has been registered with Police Station, Civil Lines, Amrtisar.

The said application was contested by the plaintiff-respondent on the plea that that he was dominus litus and, therefore, cannot be compelled to fight the litigation against a person whom he has not selected to array as a defendant. It was the further case of the plaintiff that the suit was merely for mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to allot him the strip of land at reserve price measuring 217.5 sq. yards forming part of Khasra Nos. 618 and 613 adjoining his Kothi No.278. It was also the case of the plaintiff-respondent that no relief was claimed against the applicants.

The application moved by the petitioners has been rejected by the learned trial court by holding that controversy in suit for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff can be effectively and properly disposed of between the parties to the present suit and the presence of he applicants was neither necessary nor proper. It was further held that no relief has been claimed against the applicant-petitioners. And further that the plaintiff being dominus litus of he case could not be compelled to to fight against the applicant-petitioners. It was also held that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper party for adjudication of the present controversy.

The facts mentioned above would show that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained as admittedly the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is seeking mandatory injunction against the Amritsar Improve Trust, Amritsar for allotment of area on reserve price, which according to the applicants, are the properties belonging to them which they have purchased under the sale deeds.

It may further be noticed that the other suit filed by the plaintiff in which the applicant-petitioners have been impleaded as a party, is also with regard to the suit land wherein they are claiming to be owners in possession of the property. In these circumstances, it is not understood as to how the applicant-petitioners could be said to be neither necessary nor proper party. Their right to the plot is subject matter of dispute in the present suit.

It may also be noticed that plaintiff-respondent is seeking a mandatory injunction against the Improvement Trust for transfer of property in spite of the stand by the Improvement Trust that it was not the owner of the said property. The applicants, who claim to be owners in possession of the property, would be directly affected by any decision in the present case.

Their presence is, therefore, necessary for adjudication of the case. Thus they were necessary parties and their application deserved to be allowed.

Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the application moved by the applicant-petitioners under order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed August 24, 2006 (VINOD K.SHARMA)

'dls' JUDGE


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


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 |

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