Civil Revision No.3474 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.3474 of 2008
Date of decision 07.01.2009
Pawan Kumar .....Appellant
versus
Jai Singh and others .....Respondents
Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan.
Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasvir Yadav, Advocate for the respondents.
K. Kannan, J.
1. The revision petition is directed against the order of dismissal
of application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment. The
petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that if his right
stood independently of the respondent already on record, the petitioner
before the Rent Controller who is the landlord, who is the master of his own
proceedings will secure such right as it is possible. The Rent Controller has
also observed that if an ejectment order is issued and is put in execution and
if the third party applicant is in possession he could cause suitable
obstruction at the time of execution. The Rent Controller has also observed
that the applicant had already filed a civil suit wherein order of status quo
had been passed in his favour.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the documents which he
had filed before the Rent Controller namely of a compromise proceeding in
a civil suit where it was shown that the applicant’s father Sumer Singh was
in possession of the property as a tenant and that in yet another document it
Civil Revision No.3474 of 2008 -2-
was seen that M/s Tayal Tractors had given a letter of surrender to heirs of
Sumer Singh which included the applicant as well, with the tenancy rights
in the property. The contention of the counsel is that these documents
clearly establish that the property was only in the possession of the
applicant and the action for eviction against persons who were not in
possession of the property was a method of securing somehow forcible
eviction of the person in actual possession of property.
3. In an application for impleadment the relevant issue would be
whether the presence of anyone party would be vital for adjudication sought
in the petition. Third party who claims an independent right of tenancy and
who makes no common ground with the parties already in record cannot
come in and seek for any adjudication. It will not advance the cause of
justice for either party. Indeed it will obfuscate the issues that would fall for
consideration. The applicants would have independent remedies which
indeed the applicant has already availed by instituting the civil suit.
4. The decision of the Rent Controller is proper and there is no
justification for intervention. The revision petition is accordingly
dismissed.
( K. KANNAN )
JUDGE
07.01.2009
A. KAUNDAL