Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajender Singh vs Huda Faridabad And Another on 21 December, 2022
CR-6072-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-6072-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.12.2022
Rajender Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
HUDA Faridabad and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner.
*****
H.S. MADAAN, J. (Oral)
This revision petition has been filed by petitioner Rajender
Singh, who is plaintiff in the civil suit for grant of permanent
injunction filed by him against HUDA Faridabad, being aggrieved by
the order passed by the trial Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Faridabad,
allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by Resident
Welfare Association, Urban Estate, Sector 21D, Faridabad (for short
'RWA').
Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff Rajender
Singh had filed the civil suit in question against HUDA Faridabad,
seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant to
raise a wall and to obstruct the plaintiff from use of the road.
According to the plaintiff, he has got a house bearing No.432-F, SGM
Nagar, Faridabad and there is no boundary separating Sector 21-D
1 of 4
CR-6072-2022 (O&M) -2-
from SGM Nagar, Faridabad at the point where house of the plaintiff is
situated. On one side of house of the plaintiff, there is a road passing
through Sector 21-D, which was not part of the said sector and as it
came into existence much later. The plaintiff has been using the said
road without causing inconvenience to anybody. Except the plaintiff,
no other person from SGM Nagar, Faridabad has access to the road. Of
the late, some persons from HUDA threatened to construct a wall on
side of the house so as to block the access of plaintiff to the road,
which he has been using for the last more than 20 years.
On getting notice of the suit, defendant appeared. During the
course of proceedings, RWA appeared and filed an application under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a defendant, submitting that
the plaintiff has demolished the wall of Sector 21-D, Faridabad for
ingress and egress illegally despite having no right of passage and has
mischievously obtained stay order from the Court. On coming to know
about pendency of the suit when a contempt notice was served to it, then
RWA approached the Court.
The application was opposed on behalf of the plaintiff,
stating that the application had been filed with a mala fide intention to
delay the proceedings.
After hearing both the parties, the trial Court allowed the
application. The operative part of the order contained in para Nos.5 and 6
is being reproduced for ready reference:-
"5. Considering the arguments advanced by both the
2 of 4
CR-6072-2022 (O&M) -3-
parties, after having perused the case file, this court is of the
considered view that the question as to whether the plaintiff is
vested with any right to use the disputed passage or not and
whether the interests of the residents of Sector 21D, Faridabad
are being affected, will be decided only upon merits.
6. At present, since there is an averment in the
application that the interest of residents of the said area is
being affected and a question of demolition of wall in Sector
21D, Faridabad by the plaintiff is involved, it would be
justified in the interests of justice, to implead RWA as a party to
the suit for proper representation of the interests of the
residents of the said area. Moreover, it is one of the contentions
of the applicant that they were served upon with contempt
notice of the violation of the stay order, there might be a
possibility that the interests of the residents may actually be
impaired. Therefore, for proper adjudication of the case, the
present application may be allowed as RWA is enganged in
welfare of the residents. There would be no prejudice caused to
the plaintiff or any party if the present application is allowed
and they are made a party to the present suit as one of the
defendants for proper adjudication of the case. As such,
present application is allowed. Now to come upon 13.12.2021
for filing amended title."
I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner
besides going through the record.
No doubt, the plaintiff is master of his suit and no person can
be impleaded as a party against his wishes but it is no so if the Court
finds the presence of some other person not impleaded as a party, whose
presence before the Court may be found necessary in order to enable the
Court to effectually and completely adjudicated upon and settle all the
3 of 4
CR-6072-2022 (O&M) -4-
questions involved in the suit. Here the trial Court in the impugned order
has exercised the discretion in a proper and judicious manner without
there being any element of arbitrariness. The plaintiff is complaining
against RWA for committing disobedience of the stay order granted by
the Court, if it is so, then RWA has a right to present its view point. The
presence of RWA before the Court would certainly help the Court in
properly, effectively and finally adjudicating upon the controversy
between the parties. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with
the impugned order by way of exercising revisional jurisdiction. The
judgments referred to by learned counsel for the revision petitioner i.e
Sudhamayee Pattnaik & Ors. Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo & Ors., 2022
AIR (Supreme Court) 4304 and Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs. Kiran Kant
Robinson & Ors., 2019(3) RCR (Civil) 809 are not applicable due to
different facts, circumstances and the context in which such observations
had been made.
The revision petition being without any merit stands
dismissed accordingly.
21.12.2022 (H.S. MADAAN)
sumit.k JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
4 of 4
