Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dhawal Vats(Minor) Through His ... vs Neena Sharma And Others on 4 July, 2022
134
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.2429 of 2022
Date of Decision: 04.07.2022
Dhawal Vats and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Neena Sharma and others
......Respondents
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present:- Mr. Chetan Kapoor, Advocate
for the revisionists-petitioners.
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.(Oral)
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by
learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panipat (for short 'the trial Court')
whereby the application (Annexure P-3) moved by the revisionists-
petitioners (here-in-after to be referred as 'the applicants') under Order 1
Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as the party in the Civil Suit titled as
'Neena Sharma etc. Vs. Neelam Devi and others', has been dismissed,
they (petitioners-applicants) have preferred the instant revision petition.
2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts culminating
in the filing of the present revision petition, are that respondents No.1 to 4
(here-in-after to be referred as 'the plaintiffs') filed the said civil suit
against respondents No.5 and 6 and proforma respondents No.7 and 8
(here-in-after to be referred as 'the defendants') for seeking a decree for
possession of the suit property, with a further prayer for the relief of
1 of 3
permanent injunction. The applicants moved application Annexure P-3 for
being impleaded as the defendants in the above-said civil suit while
averring that they were the sons of Sanwaria Girdhari Vats and defendant
No.1 and had been residing in the suit property. Vide the impugned order,
the said application has been dismissed by the trial Court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists-petitioners in
this revision petition and have perused the file carefully.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants contends that
the applicants are residing in the suit property and therefore, they are
necessary parties to the said civil suit for its proper and effective
adjudication.
5. However, the afore-raised contention is sans any merit
because in the said civil suit, the plaintiffs have not sought any relief
against the petitioners-applicants and being the dominus-litis, they
(plaintiffs) cannot be forced to implead the applicants as the defendants in
the same. Even otherwise, in the copies of the Aadhar Cards of the
applicants (annexed at pages No.29 (a) and 29 (b) in the paper book), they
are recorded to be the residents of Karnal whereas the suit property is
located in Panipat. Moreover, the Apex Court has also observed in the
judgment rendered in Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs. Kiran Kant 2019 (3) RCR
(Civil) 809 that "the plaintiff could not be forced to add the parties against
whom he did not want to fight."
6. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that there
is no illegality, irregularity, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order
2 of 3
passed by the trial Court, so as to warrant any interference by this Court.
7. Resultantly, the revision petition in hand, being devoid of any
merit, stands dismissed.
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
July 04, 2022 JUDGE
pooja
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
3 of 3
