Kehar Singh vs Savinder Singh and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.10.2013 (Annexure P/5) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Guru Har Sahai whereby application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC") in a civil suit titled as "Savinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others" has been dismissed. Petitioner moved an application in the suit between respondent No. 1 plaintiff and the other respondents - defendants. Hereinafter they would be referred to as applicant, plaintiff and defendants as they are arrayed in the suit.

Brief facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration challenging the sale deeds and other entries in the revenue record. The other details are not required to be referred for disposal of this petition. During the pending of the suit, the petitioner-applicant moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a party on the ground that the suit is not being defended properly by the government; the suit is for possession of land allegedly gifted for construction of a civil hospital. Applicant has retired from the service of Health Department and he, his friends and relatives have been enjoying the facility of the Hospital for treatment since long. The government has spent crores of rupees on the building and equipment of the hospital. The public at large of Guru Har Sahai will be affected if the suit is not properly defended. As such, he is a necessary and proper party for effectively and completely adjudicating the issue involved in the suit. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and the same has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 04.10.2013. Hence, this revision petition.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that it is settled principle of law that the plaintiff is dominus litus and Court should not add any defendant against the wishes of the plaintiff unless the presence of defendant to be added is necessary for effectively and completely adjudicating the matter.

Addition of third party will result into de novo proceedings as they have to be given opportunity for filing written statement. The fact which is relevant and needs to be emphasized is that the ancestors of the plaintiff allegedly donated the property to the Hospital about 60 years back. After that, the Government had sold a part of the property to defendant Nos. 7 to 9. Although the applicant is claiming to be public spirited person and saying that the property in question is for the benefit of the Hospital and residents of Guru Har Sahai, the applicant never made any effort nor raised his voice to challenge the sale deeds when the Government had sold the property. Rather, the descendants of the donors have approached the civil court challenging the same. Apparently the applicant wants to prolong the proceedings to support the persons who had sold-purchased the property. If the applicant is public spirited person and concerned about the benefit of the people, then he should have immediately approached the civil court as and when the property in question was sold to defendant Nos. 7 to 9. The intention of the applicant does not appear to be find bona fide. Once the descendants of the original donor are approaching the Court, just to stall the proceedings, the applicant appears to have moved the application. The consequences of allowing the application would be to adding a party and consequently commencement of de novo trial. It will certainly affect the rights of the plaintiff and other interested in the property. The application appears to have been moved to prolong the proceedings and is mala fide, same is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case, specifically, because the applicant never challenged the sale deeds.

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Dismissed.