C.R. No. 5551 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No. 5551 of 2009
Date of Decision: September 1, 2009
Jag Ram
.....Petitioner
Vs.
Manphool Singh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:- Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.R.D. Yadav, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Vide impugned order an application filed by the petitioner
under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in a suit filed by respondent No.1-Manphool
Singh for claiming compensation of damages on account of hailstorm to his
corps for rabi 2006-07, stands dismissed.
C.R. No. 5551 of 2008 [2]
Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the plaintiff-
respondent No.1- Manphool Singh has filed a suit for compensation
claiming himself to be in possession of land as per khasra girdwari of 2006-
07. He has admitted in para 6 of his plaint that he has got suit for injunction
pending against Jag Ram i.e. the petitioner. An interim injunction has been
granted to the plaintiff- respondent No.1 by Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Rewari. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed as such the civil
revision petition has been filed by the petitioner which is pending in this
Court.
On the basis of the above circumstances, it is claimed that the
petitioner is a necessary party because his right of possession and ownership
has to be determined vis-à-vis the plaintiff- respondent in the present case.
It is claimed that the petitioner is owner in the capacity as proprietor of the
village in the property in dispute which is shamlat deh.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner. It is apparent that a
dispute regarding the rights in the shamlat deh is pending between plaintiff-
respondent No.1 and the petitioner. Manphool Singh, plaintiff- respondent
No.1 has already filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner,
as is mentioned in the plaint. The trial Court by an interim order has
restrained the petitioner from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-
respondent. No doubt, a civil revision is pending against the order
favourable to the plaintiff- respondent but so far the present case is
concerned, the short relief which has been claimed by the plaintiff-
respondent No.1 is compensation for the loss caused to the crop for the rabi
C.R. No. 5551 of 2008 [3]
2006-07 claiming that his crop of wheat and mustered for the said period
was destroyed. The compensation has already been deposited with
Compensation Distribution Officer. The petitioner claims that he has got
interest in the property being proprietor of the village, and has sought to be
impleaded as party in the case. The plaintiff- respondent has not sought any
relief against the petitioner. The only relief sought for by him is the
disbursement of the compensation for the loss caused to the crops on
account of hailstorm. In case the petitioner claims that crop belong to him
or that he had sown the crop, he has got an independent right to put-forth his
claim. The plaintiff- respondent Manphool Singh being dominus litus of his
case cannot be compelled to contest the case against the present petitioner
especially when the plaintiff- respondent has already filed a suit for
injunction against the petitioner, restraining him from interfering in his
possession. The rights of the petitioner vis-à-vis plaintiff- respondent
Manphool Singh are to be determined in that suit. No ground is made out
for interference in the impugned order.
Dismissed.
It is made clear that dismissal of the application under Order 1
Rule 10 CPC of the petitioner will not, in any manner, prejudice his rights in
the litigation pending in the case of Manphool Singh Vs. Jag Ram, before
the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Rewari.
September 1, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE