Civil Rev. 2356 of 2008 1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
Civil Rev. 2356 of 2008
Date of decision: 3.8.2009
Darbara Singh
Petitioner
vs
The Raman Schedule Caste Society and another
Respondent
Present Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate
Mr. Sherry K Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2
M.M.S.BEDI,J.
Vide order dated 20.2.2008 the learned Addl. Civil Judge
(Sr.D) Talwandi Sabo has allowed the application filed by respondent No.2
Kartar Singh under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and permitted him to be
impleaded as a party as he is an active member of the Raman Schedule
Castes Cooperative Land Owning Society Litd ( for short the Society) and
he has got a right to protect the interest of of the society.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the Society .
The Society has filed a detailed written statement contesting the claim of
the plaintiff- petitioner stating therein that the Society has already filed a
suit for possession regarding the suit property against the plaintiff-
petitioner. Learned counsel has also drawn my attention to a civil suit for
injunction filed by respondent No.2 Kartar Singh, which was withdrawn on
2.5.2007 pertaining to the same property in dispute. In the said suit,
respondent No.2 had sought a permanent injunction against the present
petitioner and Billa Singh, President of the Society restraining the petitioner
Civil Rev. 2356 of 2008 2
from rasing any construction over the land in dispute.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has
contended that he being the member of the Society is entitled to safe-
guard the interest of the Society as the society has colluded with the
plaintiff- petitioner and admitted the possession.
I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and gone
through the pleadings of the parties and the order passed by the trial court.
A perusal of the written statement, filed by respondent No.1 Society
indicates that the possession of the plaintiff- petitioner has been admitted
but at the same time, a preliminary objection has been raised that the
Society, being a lawful owner of the suit land is entitled to the possession
of the same and that the defendant-society has already instituted a suit for
possession against the petitioner, which is pending before the learned Civil
Judge (Sr.D.), Talwandi Sabo. It is no where admitted in the written
statement that the plaintiff- petitioner is owner by way of adverse
possession as is sought to be projected by the counsel for respondent
No.2. A copy of the plaint, filed by respondent No.1 Society for seeking the
possession of the suit land has been brought to my notice. It is a settled
principle of law that the plaintiff is ‘dominus litus’ of his case. He has not
sought any relief against defendant- respondent No.2. The defendant-
respondent No.2 has got an apprehension that the claim of adverse
possession of the plaintiff-petitioner will be admitted by the Society to
cause prejudice to the Society. The said apprehension seems to be
misconceived as the issue of plaintiff- petitioner being owner by way of
adverse possession will be a mixed question of law and fact. Merely by
claiming that the plaintiff- petitioner has been in possession of the land of
the Society for more than 12 years, is not sufficient enough for seeking
ownership especially when the Society has specifically denied the
Civil Rev. 2356 of 2008 3
ownership of the plaintiff and has specifically pleaded that he is in
unauthorized and illegal possession of the suit property. Respondent No.2
seems to have a personal grievance against the petitioner and to prevent
the petitioner from raising any construction, he had filed a suit, which was
withdrawn by him on the ground of some technical error. By forcing himself
as a defendant, he cannot be permitted to become a party under Order 1
Rule 10 CPC as his presence is neither necessary nor any relief has been
claimed against him.
In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 20.2.2008 is hereby set aside . However, it is made clear that
this order will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of respondent No.2 to
avail any other legal remedy, available to him in his individual capacity in
accordance with law. It is further made clear that any evidence, which has
been brought on the record till date will not become a nullity but can be
taken into consideration by the trial court subject to the rules of evidence
for the just decision of the case.
August 3 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE