Kehar Singh Petitioner vs Hakam Singh

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—This petition is against the order dated 15.1.2014 by which petitioner''s application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC has been declined.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to site plan (Annexure P5), has submitted that because of raising of the road the water is being accumulated in the property of the applicant, who had applied to the Government for construction of culvert, which has been approved and shown in the site plan. By virtue of that culvert, the water would definitely slope towards the other side where property of the plaintiffs is there, who had filed suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents No. 3 to 5 (herein) from constructing the culvert. Since, the culvert is constructed on request of the applicants, therefore, they had filed application for becoming party. However, the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the applicants may file their separate suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a separate suit would add to the multiplicity of litigation between the same parties and if he is allowed to contest the suit of the plaintiffs then not only the multiplicity of suit would be avoided but also complete facts would be brought to the notice of the Court as the proposed culvert is being constructed on his land.

Learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the revision petition, has relied upon the order passed by the learned Court below and has submitted that the remedy available to the petitioner is of filing a separate suit.

I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and after examining the record, am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is patently erroneous because the applicant is a necessary party to the suit. Though the plaintiffs are only seeking injunction to restrain PWD Department from raising the proposed culvert but at the same time, the said culvert is being constructed for the benefit of the petitioner as raising the level of the road would lead to accumulation of water in the property of the applicant, who is the sufferer.

In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside.