AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.B. Garg, J.
Shamlat Patti Sikhan through its President Gurdev Singh has instituted a suit on 21.5. 1990 for permanent injunction against Sham Lal and four others of Purani Nabi, Nabha, praying that the defendants be restrained from selling, alienating agricultural land described in the plaint and situate in village Alohran, tehsil Nabha. During the pendency of this suit Mustaq Ahmed, a resident of Nabha, has moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein, it has been averred that on a part of the land Muslims bury the dead bodies and that he should be impleaded as a party. This application has been dismissed by SubJudge, Ist Class, Nabha on 10.8.19991 and aggrieved against it the present revision has been attempted.
On behalf of the petitioner, it has been argued that he is a resident of Nabha and he has interest in the land and he would like to ensure that the Plaintiff may not succeed in securing a decree detriment to his interest.
On behalf of the plaintiffrespondent, it has been pointed out that the apprehension is against particular person and they have been impleaded as defendants. The learned counsel for the plaintiffrespondent has referred to Banarsi Dass Durga Parshad v. Panna Lal Ram Richhpal Oswal and other, AIR 1969 Punjab and Haryana 57, wherein it was observed that the courts should not add a person as a defendant in a suit when the plaintiff is opposed to such addition. The reason is that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and he is the master of the suit. It was further observed that the plaintiff cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not wish to fight and against whom he does not claim any relief. In the case in hand, if the petitioner wants to establish that he too had vested interest as an alleged representative of the Muslims in a smaller part of the land he may institute a separate civil suit after specifying the land and after giving the description of the alleged Kabristan. The conclusion is that present revision has no merit and it is hereby dismissed.