Beant Kaur and Another vs Sukhdev Singh Majithia and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—This order will dispose of Civil Revision No. 3532 of 2012 titled "Beant Kaur and another v. Sukhdev Singh Majithia and others filed by the defendant and Civil Revision No. 2885 of 2012 titled "Sukhdev Singh Majithia v. Beant Kaur and others" filed by one of the plaintiffs, as they arise from the same order and challenge in both the revisions is to the impugned order of the trial court whereby application of respondent - Narender Phool @ Narinder Amol Singh under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been allowed. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 3532 of 2012.

Instant revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 18.4.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra, whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by respondent No. 5 herein, has been allowed.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 5 herein, moved an application for impleading as party to the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The application by respondent No. 5 was moved on the ground that he is in possession of the land in question; as such has right to protect his interest.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Admittedly, the suit is only for declaration with respect to ''Will'' and for injunction qua the stay of alienation by the defendants. The application has been allowed by the trial court even after observing that the applicant is not a necessary party to the suit. Since respondent No. 5/applicant''s only claim is that he is in possession as a lessee, when the declaration is sought with regard to ''Will'' then he has nothing to contest with regard to validity of the ''Will'' in question. So far as the injunction part is concerned, that is only for restraining the defendants from alienating the property in question and it will not affect the rights of respondent No. 5/applicant as there is no stay with regard to his possession or otherwise.

In view of above, this Court is of the view that he is not a proper party for this purpose. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside.

However, apprehension of respondent No. 5/applicant is that he is in possession and on the basis of decree, parties may claim possession. It is settled principle of law that a decree will not operate against a person unless he is a party to that decree. Otherwise also possession can be disturbed in due course of law not otherwise. In view of the averments in the application itself that respondent No. 5 has already filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff as well as the defendants in the present litigation, he will be at liberty to avail remedy in accordance with law.

Disposed of.