Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdev Kaur @ Gurvinder Kaur Deol vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 December, 2022
Page 1 of 4
CR 1266/2022
\IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR 1266/2022
Date of decision:6.12.2022
Gurdev Kaur @ Gurvinder Kaur
..................Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
.....................Respondents
CORAM HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Ms. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab for official respondents.
Mr.Aditya Dassan, Advocate for respondents 5 and 6.
Nidhi Gupta,J.
Prayer in this revision petition is for setting aside the order
dated 16.11.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by CJ(JD)-cum-JMIC, Jalandhar
accepting the application of respondents 5 and 6 herein filed by them under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading them as defendants in the suit filed by
the petitioner.
Brief facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration to
the effect that she was lawful owner in possession of the land measuring 16
RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI
2022.12.12 11:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CR 1266/2022
kanals (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land'), as per entries contained in
the copy of Jamabandi for the year 2010-2011 on the basis of judgment and
decree passed in Civil Suit titled 'Pakhar Singh v Pritam Singh-Amar Kaur'
bearing Civil Suit No. 275/1991 decided vide judgment and decree dated
31.10.2006; and further to the effect that the name of the plaintiff is required
to be entered in column no.4 of the Jamabandi on the basis of said judgment
and decree dated 31.10.2006.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the respondents 5 and 6 have no cause of action for filing the application for
impleadment and that the petitioner/plaintiff is dominus-litus; master of her
suit and therefore, she cannot be forced to implead the applicants as
respondents. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court did not
consider the fact that the present suit is a suit for declaration and therefore,
respondents 5 and 6 are not necessary parties on the basis of title as the
petitioner has sought her name to be incorporated in the column of possession
which fact is undisputed. It is accordingly submitted that the learned trial
court was in error in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with
Section 151 CPC for impleading the respondent nos. 5 and 6 as defendants in
the above suit.
Per contra, learned counsel for the added respondents 5 and 6
submits that genus of the present suit dates back to the Civil Suit for
declaration and permanent injunction dated 18.4.1988 filed by Pritam Singh,
father of the petitioner/plaintiff (since deceased) against one Pakhar Singh and
others. In the said main Civil Suit no. 195/2006 dated 18.4.1988 filed by
Pritam Singh against Pakhar Singh and others, the plaintiff Pritam Singh had
sought four reliefs - of possession, recovery of mesne profits, declaration, and
RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI
2022.12.12 11:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CR 1266/2022
permanent injunction. A perusal of the decree sheet of the said suit shows that
vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2006 the said suit was dismissed with
regard to reliefs of possession, recovery of mesne profits and declaration, and
was only partly allowed for permanent injunction - to the effect that
defendants therein were restrained from dis-possessing the plaintiff - Pritam
Singh in any manner except in due course of law. It is submitted that therefore,
the civil suit of the father of the present petitioner/plaintiff was decreed only
with regards to permanent injunction, and no ownership right therefore, now
accrues to the present petitioner therefrom. It is further submitted that the said
consolidated Civil Suit No. 275 of 1991 on basis of which the petitioner is
claiming ownership was in fact, dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
31.10.2006 (Annexure P-6). It is further submitted that respondents 5 and 6
are bona fide purchasers of the suit land along with one Kulwant Singh, and
are co-sharers in the land in question. It is stated that by way of present suit
petitioner wants to be declared as owner of the suit land and her name to be
entered in the Jamabandi. In this regard, her averments in para 3 of the plaint
are clearly misleading as it has been averred therein that "vide judgment and
decree dated 31.10.2006, whereby Pritam Singh was declared to be owner in
possession of the land measuring 16 kanals by way of his adverse possession".
It is submitted that however, as is evident from judgment and decree dated
31.10.2006 (Annexure P-6), it has already been demonstrated above that the
Civil Suit No. 275 of 1991 on basis of which the petitioner is claiming
ownership was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2006; and the
Civil Suit no.195/06 of Pritam Singh was dismissed with regard to relief of
possession, recovery of mesne profits and declaration and was partly decreed
only for injunction.
RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI
2022.12.12 11:01
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CR 1266/2022
I find merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of
respondents 5 and 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert
the submissions made on behalf of respondents 5 and 6. Perusal of the record
very clearly shows that it is not in dispute that the Civil Suit No. 275 of 1991
on basis of which the petitioner is claiming ownership was dismissed vide
judgment and decree dated 31.10.2006; and suit of father of plaintiff was only
partly decreed in regard to the suit land vide judgment and decree dated
31.10.2006. It has further come on record that respondents 5 and 6 along with
one Kulwant Singh are co-sharers of the suit land on the basis of registered
sale deed and mutation has also been sanctioned in their favour. Said Kulwant
Singh had earlier filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC which was
allowed and he has already been arrayed as defendant no.4 in the present suit.
It is further clear from the record that the petitioner is claiming ownership on
the basis of adverse possession and unlike respondents 5 and 6 she does not
have any title or document in her name. Perusal of the impugned order shows
that respondents 5 and 6 have duly placed on record sale deed executed in
their favour and a copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2009-2010 which depicts
them to be joint owners in the suit property. As such it is clear that
respondents 5 and 6 are necessary parties to the dispute as their interests are
involved in the present suit. Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove,
I find no error in the impugned order, and the present revision petition is
hereby dismissed.
06.12.2022 (Nidhi Gupta)
Joshi Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI
2022.12.12 11:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
