Gorkhu & Ors vs Kailash Chand & Ors

Satyen Vaidya, J

Heard.

Petitioners herein are the defendants before the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.33 of 2015. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs (respondents No.1 to 3 herein) preferred an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment of one Shri Amaru as proforma defendant in addition to the proforma defendants already impleaded.

Ground on which impleadment of Shri Amaru was sought was that he was also recorded as one of the co-sharer in the suit land along with the plaintiffs and already impleaded proforma defendants. His two brothers, who were also similarly situated, were also already impleaded as proforma defendants No.23 and 24. It was on such premise only that the impleadment of Shri Amaru was sought.

The contesting defendants i.e. petitioners herein opposed the prayer on the ground that the application had been filed belatedly. There was no necessity to implead Shri Amaru as the matter between the same parties stood already decided before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Kullu, under the provisions of Land Revenue Act. In such proceedings also Shri Amaru was not a party. Defendants/petitioners herein also came up with a specific stand that Shri Amaru had nothing to do with the suit land directly or indirectly.

I have gone through the record placed on the file. It is specifically noticed by the learned trial Court in the impugned order that the name of Shri Amaru also finds mention in the jamabandi as one of the cosharer. However, there is nothing on record to rebut such findings. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also not been able to show from the record that the findings to this aspect recorded by the learned trial Court was incorrect. That being so, once two other brothers of Shri Amaru were impleaded as proforma defendants No.23 and 24 merely on the basis of similar entry in the jamabandi in their favour, there is no reason that the prayer of plaintiffs to implead Shri Amaru as a party could be denied.

Even otherwise, defendants/petitioners herein have not been able to show as to what prejudice shall be caused to them by impleading Shri Amaru as proforma defendant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even before the revenue authorities Shri Amaru was not a party and as such his impleadment in the suit was totally unjustified as Shri Amaru was neither a proper or necessary party to the suit.

The contention so raised on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be rejected for the reason that plaintiffs are dominus litus of the case. As noticed above, when similarly situated persons i.e. brothers of Shri Amaru are already parties to the suit, the impleadment of Shri Amaru as one of the proforma defendants cannot be said to be unjustified.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the order impugned before this Court is affirmed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.