Shakuntla @ Rambati and Another vs Sher Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to order dated 8.9.2011 passed by

the trial court thereby dismissing application Annexure P/6 filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleading them as party

to the suit which has been instituted by respondent no. 1-plaintiff against proforma respondents no. 2 and 3 i.e. Circle Revenue Officer/Assistant

Collector II Grade and State of Haryana as defendants vide plaint Annexure P/1. Petitioners are wife and son respectively of respondent no. 1

plaintiff. They had earlier filed a suit as well as application for maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) against

respondent no. 1-plaintiff. In that suit, restraint order was passed against the present plaintiff restraining him from alienating the land mentioned in

that suit. Petitioners also alleged that the disputed land was also attached in execution proceedings for recovery of maintenance amount. The

plaintiff in the present suit has challenged the entries of aforesaid restraint order and attachment order made in the revenue record. The petitioners

claimed themselves to be necessary party to the suit in the aforesaid circumstances.

Respondent no. 1-plaintiff by filing reply Annexure P/7 contested the application. However, factum of restraint order and attachment order was

admitted. Various other pleas were also raised.

None has appeared for the contesting respondent no. 1-plaintiff inspite of last opportunity granted for today. None either appeared for

respondent no. 1 on the preceding two dates of hearing. Consequently, I have heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for proforma

respondents no. 2 and 3 and perused the case file.

Plaintiff in the suit has challenged entries regarding restraint order and attachment order passed in suit/execution proceedings launched by the

petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners are not only proper but also necessary party to the suit. The plaintiff is playing fraud not only with the

petitioners but also with the court by filing the suit by impleading Circle Revenue Officer/Assistant Collector II Grade and the State of Haryana

only as defendants although the real adversary or contesting party are the present petitioners. Any order that may be passed in the suit would

adversely effect the rights of the petitioners. The entries of restraint and attachment orders under challenge in the suit have been made in

proceedings launched by the petitioners. Consequently, without impleading the petitioners as party to the suit, the suit cannot be adjudicated

properly and effectively. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to be impleaded as party to the suit being necessary party thereto,

notwithstanding that plaintiff as dominus litus has opposed the application of the petitioners for their impleadment. Impugned order passed by the

trial court is patently illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error.

Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. Application Annexure P/6 filed by the

petitioners is allowed and petitioners are ordered to be impleaded as defendants no. 3 and 4 to the suit which has been filed vide plaint Annexure

P/1. Civil miscellaneous application, if any pending, is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.