Delhi High Court
Anil Sharma vs Poonam Sharma & Ors. on 17 September, 2014
$~ 17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 204/2013 & C.M.No.2940/2013 (Stay)
17th September, 2014
ANIL SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Kirti Uppal, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Arun Baali, Advocate.
versus
POONAM SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.A.K.Singla, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Vimal Khanna, Advocate.
Mr.Amit Jagga, Advocate for R-2&3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
impugns the order passed by the trial court dated 28.1.2013 by which
the trial court has allowed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
of one Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma and impleaded him as defendant no.4
in the suit. In fact by the impugned order besides Sh.Vinod Kumar
Sharma being impleaded as defendant no.4, the brother of Sh.Vinod
Kumar Sharma i.e Sh.Pramod Kumar Sharma has been impleaded as
defendant no.5.
2. The subject suit is a suit for partition and injunction with
respect to the property no.34, Block Q, Double Story, Lajpat Nagar
IV, New Delhi. The case of the applicant Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma as
also his brother Sh.Pramod Kumar Sharma is that they are in
exclusive physical possession of the suit property and in their absence
as parties in the suit, their valuable rights in the suit would be
affected. The applicant Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma and his brother
Sh.Pramod Kumar Sharma claimed to be in possession of the suit
property pursuant to a title, and which title is very emphatically
denied by the parties to the suit.
3. I am informed that the suit, in fact, has been compromised
between the parties to the suit and the petitioner/defendant no.1 has
been given by the other parties the complete right, title and interest in
the suit property.
4. It is trite that judgment in a civil suit will only bind the parties
to the suit and will not operate as res judicata against a person who is
not a party to the suit, however, similarly it is trite that judgment in a
suit cannot affect the rights, entitlement and enjoyment including the
possession of a person in an immovable property and who is not a
party to the suit i.e effectively orders cannot be passed, interim or
final, which can affect the rights of a person in his absence on account
of his not being a party to the suit.
5. In view of the above, while the impugned order impleading the
applicant Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma and his brother Sh.Pramod Kumar
Sharma is set aside because the judgment in the suit will not operate
as res judicata against Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma and Sh.Pramod
Kumar Sharma, however, it is clarified that no order of any nature
whether interim, final or otherwise will be passed in the subject suit
which in any manner will have bearing on the rights, entitlement,
enjoyment and possession of Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma and
Sh.Pramod Kumar Sharma in the suit property.
6. I may hasten to clarify that I have not opined in one way or the
other with respect to contesting claims of title in the suit property,
either of the present parties to the suit or of Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma
and Sh.Pramod Kumar Sharma. Further, it is always open to
Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma and Sh.Pramod Kumar Sharma to file
appropriate independent proceedings in a court of law, if so advised,
if there is any cloud cast on their title or entitlement to use, possession
and enjoyment of the suit property.
7. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of, but, in
terms of the aforesaid observations.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
SEPTEMBER 17, 2014/KA
