Central University of Haryana vs Mahipal Singh & Gram Panchayat

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Tersely, the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that, initially, respondent No. 1-plaintiff Mahipal Singh son of Rawat Singh (for brevity "the plaintiff"), has instituted the civil suit (Annexure P2), for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining respondent No. 2-defendant Gram Panchayat (for short "the defendant-GP"), from interfering in his possession over the suit land. The defendant-GP has contested the suit, filed written statement (Annexure P3) stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of suit. Sequelly, the GP passed a resolution dated 29.12.2009 (Annexure P4) and leased out its land for establishment of Central University. Consequently, the petitioner-Central University of Haryana (for brevity "the petitioner-University") moved an application (Annexure P8) to implead it as a party (defendant) to contest the main suit, under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC. The plaintiff refuted its prayer, filed the reply (Annexure P9), strongly denied all the allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal.

The trial Court dismissed the application (Annexure P8) filed by the petitioner-university to implead it in the main suit as a defendant, by way of impugned order dated 19.7.2012 (Annexure P1).

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-University has preferred the present petition, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this respect.

As is evident from the record that the plaintiff has filed the civil suit (Annexure P2) against the defendant-GP in the manner depicted herein- above; It is not a matter of dispute that the GP has already passed a resolution (Annexure- P4), by virtue of which, the land, including the land- in litigation, was leased out for a period of 99 years to establish the Central University for larger public interest. Not only that, the State Government has duly approved the indicated resolution of lease, as contemplated under Rule 6(1) of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 as applicable to Haryana, conveyed vide letter dated 29.12.2009. Consequently, the regular lease deed dated 26.3.2010 (Annexure P5) was executed between the lesser & lessee and registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Mohindergarh. Moreover, this factual matrix has been acknowledged by learned counsel for the parties. In this manner, the defendant-GP has ceased to have any subsisting interest in the suit land, which has been given to petitioner-University on lease for a period of 99 years. The application (Annexure P8) of petitioner-University was dismissed by the trial Court, mainly on the ground that since the lease deed was executed during the pendency of the suit, so, it will be hit by the principle of lis pendens.

Here, to me, the trial Court slipped into a deep legal error in this regard. It is now well settled principle of law that Order 1 Rule 10 & Order 22 Rule 10 CPC empower the Court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary or proper for effectively and completely deciding the issue involved in the suit. The reliance in this regard can be placed on a recent judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in case Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors P. Ltd. and Others, . Therefore, once, it is proved on record that the defendant-GP has ceased to have any subsisting right and has already leased out the land in dispute for a period of 99 years to petitioner-University, in that eventuality, its presence is very much essential to decide the real controversy between the parties and to effectively adjudicate upon the lis. The ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, "mutatis mutandis" is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and is complete answer to the problem in hand. Thus, the trial court has committed a grave irregularity and patent illegality to dismiss the application of petitioner-University under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the impugned order (Annexure P1) cannot legally be sustained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is accepted. The impugned order (Annexure P1) is hereby set aside and the application (Annexure P8) is allowed. The trial Court is directed to implead the petitioner-University as a defendant and permit it to contest the main suit in accordance with law.