Smt. Sundra Vs. Jaswant Singh and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1091795
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-23-2013
AppellantSmt. Sundra
RespondentJaswant Singh and Others
Excerpt:
cr no.6117 of 2012 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cr no.6117 of 2012 date of decision:23.09.2013. smt. sundra ....petitioner versus jaswant singh and others .....respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice paramjeet singh1 whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2) to be referred to the reporters or not?. 3) whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. present: mr.shiv kumar, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.kulbhushan sharma, advocate, for respondents no.6 to 34. **** paramjeet singh, j. (oral) instant revision petition has been filed under article 227 of the constitution of india for setting aside the order dated 21.08.2012 passed by learned civil judge (jr. divn.).faridabad whereby application filed by respondents no.6 to 34 under order 1 rule 10 of the code of civil procedure for being impleaded as defendants, has been allowed. shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that the petitioner-plaintiff filed suit kumar parveen 2013.09.25 09:41 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh cr no.6117 of 2012 2 for permanent injunction claiming to be owner in possession of suit property against respondents no.1 to 5. during the pendency of suit, respondents no.6 to 34 moved application for being impleaded as defendants and the same has been allowed vide impugned order dated 21.08.2012. feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the instant revision petition. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has cause of action only against respondents no.1 to 5 and no relief has been claimed against respondents no.6 to 34. the suit has been filed by the petitioner merely for protecting his possession and respondents no.6 to 34 admit the possession of the petitioner in the suit land, although they are alleging that possession is in capacity of a licensee. the learned counsel has further contended that respondents no.6 to 34 are not necessary and proper parties for just decision of the suit. per contra, learned counsel for respondents no.6 to 34 has opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that mahavir singh, maha singh, tule ram and suraj singh @ dev raj were owners of the land in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 10.06.963 and after their death, respondents no.6 to 34 being their legal heirs have inherited the same and this being the position they are proper party for adjudication of suit. kumar parveen 2013.09.25 09:41 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh cr no.6117 of 2012 3 i have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. since suit of the petitioner is for the relief of permanent injunction and the relief is sought against respondents no.1 to 5, respondents no.6 to 34 are not necessary parties, more particularly when the dimensions of concerned property mentioned in the suit do not tally with dimensions mentioned in the sale deed dated 10.06.1963. it would be appropriate to mention here that the property in dispute is situated within the abadi deh and does not have any khasr.number and dimensions in sale deed dated 10.06.1963 shown to this court do not tally with dimensions in plaint. moreover, the sale deed dated 10.06.1963 on the basis of which respondents no.6 to 34 have been impleaded as defendants shown to this court does not appear to be a registered document despite the fact that value of property is more than ` 100/-. the sale deed having the value of more than ` 100/- is compulsorily registrable. however, not being so, it cannot be taken into consideration by court. in the suit for permanent injunction, neither any relief has been claimed against respondents no.6 to 34, nor respondents no.6 to 34 have been able to show their prima facie right over the land in question. thus, they are not necessary and property party. in view of this, the instant revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.08.2012 is set aside. (paramjeet singh) judge september 23, 2013 parveen kumar kumar parveen 2013.09.25 09:41 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh
Judgment:

CR No.6117 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6117 of 2012 Date of Decision:23.09.2013.

Smt.

Sundra ....Petitioner Versus Jaswant Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Present: Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate, for respondents no.6 to 34.

**** PARAMJEET SINGH, J.

(Oral) Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 21.08.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.

Divn.).Faridabad whereby application filed by respondents no.6 to 34 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as defendants, has been allowed.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that the petitioner-plaintiff filed suit Kumar Parveen 2013.09.25 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.6117 of 2012 2 for permanent injunction claiming to be owner in possession of suit property against respondents no.1 to 5.

During the pendency of suit, respondents no.6 to 34 moved application for being impleaded as defendants and the same has been allowed vide impugned order dated 21.08.2012.

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant revision petition.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has cause of action only against respondents no.1 to 5 and no relief has been claimed against respondents no.6 to 34.

The suit has been filed by the petitioner merely for protecting his possession and respondents no.6 to 34 admit the possession of the petitioner in the suit land, although they are alleging that possession is in capacity of a licensee.

The learned counsel has further contended that respondents no.6 to 34 are not necessary and proper parties for just decision of the suit.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents no.6 to 34 has opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that Mahavir Singh, Maha Singh, Tule Ram and Suraj Singh @ Dev Raj were owners of the land in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 10.06.963 and after their death, respondents no.6 to 34 being their legal heirs have inherited the same and this being the position they are proper party for adjudication of suit.

Kumar Parveen 2013.09.25 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.6117 of 2012 3 I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.

Since suit of the petitioner is for the relief of permanent injunction and the relief is sought against respondents no.1 to 5, respondents no.6 to 34 are not necessary parties, more particularly when the dimensions of concerned property mentioned in the suit do not tally with dimensions mentioned in the sale deed dated 10.06.1963.

It would be appropriate to mention here that the property in dispute is situated within the abadi deh and does not have any khaSr.number and dimensions in sale deed dated 10.06.1963 shown to this Court do not tally with dimensions in plaint.

Moreover, the sale deed dated 10.06.1963 on the basis of which respondents no.6 to 34 have been impleaded as defendants shown to this Court does not appear to be a registered document despite the fact that value of property is more than ` 100/-.

The sale deed having the value of more than ` 100/- is compulsorily registrable.

However, not being so, it cannot be taken into consideration by Court.

In the suit for permanent injunction, neither any relief has been claimed against respondents no.6 to 34, nor respondents no.6 to 34 have been able to show their prima facie right over the land in question.

Thus, they are not necessary and property party.

In view of this, the instant revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.08.2012 is set aside.

(Paramjeet Singh) Judge September 23, 2013 parveen kumar Kumar Parveen 2013.09.25 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh