JUDGMENT
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. Plaintiff-petitioners have filed this revision against trial Court’s order dated May 25, 1995, whereby petition filed by Karnail Singh under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is allowed and the plaintiffs are directed to implead him by filing an amended plaint.
2. Plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of l/3rd share of the suit land (mentioned in the title of the plaint). Defendant-Angrej Kaur has no concern with the land. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to get the mutation changed in their favour in the revenue record. They filed this suit against Angrej Kaur widow of Kapur Singh, grand-mother of the plaintiffs. Karnail Singh son of defendant Angrej Kaur i.e. he is uncle of the plaintiffs. Karnail Singh in his petition averred that in a family settlement arrived at 2/3 years ago, half share of the suit land was given to him and the other half share was given to the plaintiffs. He is in cultivating possession of half share of the disputed land. The plaintiff-petitioners have filed this suit in collusion with defendant-Angrej Kaur to deprive him of his half share of the suit land.
3. During arguments, the plaintiff-petitioners’ learned counsel submitted that the plaintiffs also pleaded that l/3rd share of the suit land was given to the plaintiffs In a family settlement, which was arrived at 2/3 years before the filing of the suit. Neither the plaintiffs nor Karnail Singh respondent have given any specific date, month or year of this family settlement. Both the parties are claiming ownership in the suit land on the basis of family settlement which took place 2/3 years ago.
4. The plaintiff-petitioners contested the petition filed by Karnail Singh. The trial Court, however, allowed the said petition.
5. Plaintiff-petitioners’ learned counsel contended that since they are dominus litus and they do not want to fight against Karnail Singh, the trial Court fell into an error in allowing his petition. Petitioners’ learned counsel also submitted that these plaintiff-petitioners have not claimed any relief against Karnail Singh. If at all Karnail Singh feels that his rights will be jeopardised by any decree that may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs in the said suit, the judgment/decree will not bind him because it is settled law that judgment is binding on the parties inter se and thus Karnail Singh can file a separate suit to agitate his alleged rights in the suit land, but the plaintiffs cannot be directed to implead him in his suit when they are not seeking any releif against him. In support of these contentions, plaintiff’s-petitioners’ learned counsel relied on Aman Behal Smt. Aruna Kansal, (1986-1)89 P.L.R. 608; Rohi Ram thers Mukhtiar Kaur, (1986-1)89 P.L.R. 303 and Harbhajan Singh Sarup Singh, (1993-1)103 P.L.R. 729.
6. Applicant-respondent Karnail Singh’s learned counsel, relying on Surjit Kaur thers Chand Singh other, (1988-2)94 P.L.R. 553: Smt. Ram Kali Ujala other, (1988-2)94 P.L.R. 553 and Ved Kumar Smt. Raj Rani, (19932)103 P.L.R. 531, strongly stressed that since both the parties are claiming a share in the disputed 1 n the basis of family arrangement, which, according, to both of them, took place 2/3 years before the institution of the suit, this suit can be effectively adjudicated in the presence of Karnail Singh. Therefore, presence of Karnail Singh in this suit is essential for effective and proper adjudication of the rights involved in the civil suit. He also contended that the applicant-respondent Karnail Singh cannot be forced to file a separate suit to get his rights decided as in this very suit his rights can be effectively adjudicated upon. It will avoid multiplicity of suits as well.
7. No doubt, the plaintiff is dominus litus of his and if he is not seeking any relief against a party, he cannot be forced to implead that party in the suit. But the authorities relied on by the plaintiff-petitioners’ learned counsel are distinguishable on facts.
8. In Aman Behal (supra) the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against the Karta of HUF. In that it was held that a coparcener is not a necessary party to such a suit and his petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed.
9. In Rohi Ram (supra) the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title on the basis of a Will. Nephew of the deceased filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as a party on the basis of relationship with the deceased, claiming a superior right of succession. On these facts, it was held that if nephew is impleaded, it would bring a new cause of action. Therefore, it was held that the trial Court was not justified in allowing his petition for impleadment.
10. In Harbhajan Singh (supra) three sons filed a suit against their father and grandmother for declaration to be owners in possession of 1 d permanent injunction. Another brother of the plaintiffs filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC alleging that he being a coparcener should be impleaded in the suit as he has a right in the joint family property about which suit was filed. He also alleged that the plaintiffs have filed the suit in collusion with the defendants. The High Court held that it cannot be said that the applicant is a proper or necessary party and – the suit cannot be effectively decided in his absence. It is also observed that it is not necessary that the son should be allowed to be impleaded as a defendant in a suit where father intends to admit the claim in the suit filed by his other sons. Even if the defendants admit the claim of the plaintiffs and suffer a decree, the decree will be binding on the parties to lis only. Remedy of the applicant-son is byway of a separate suit and not by way of impleadment in the suit, which is filed by his other brother. Thus, his petition was dismissed.
11. In Surjit Kaur (supra) Surjit Kaur etc. filed a suit against Chand Singh for declaration regarding their claim of ownership of half share of the land in dispute and for declaration that they are in possession of the same. Defendant-Chand . Singh admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit, Daulat Singh filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC claiming that he had been in continuous possession of the suit land as an owner after the same had been gifted by defendant-Chand Singh to him in June 1954. He also asserted that he had been adopted as a son by defendant-Chand Singh. Thus, he prayed that he be impleaded as a defendant in the suit. His petition was also contested on the same ground that the plaintiffs are dominus litus – and since they are not claming any relief against Daulat Singh, he cannot be impleaded as a party. The trial Court allowed the petition filed by Daulat Singh. This order was affirmed by the High Court, holding that Daulat Singh is claiming a direct interest in the property being its co-owner in possession since 1954 on account of having been adopted as a son by Chand Singh. Since Chand Singh has admitted the plaintiffs’ claim it is all the more desirable that the claim made by the applicant should be enquired into more closely instead of merely passing a collusive decree.
12. In Smt. Ram Kali (supra) also it is observed that the Court has no jurisdiction to add party merely because that would save third person the expenses and botheration of a separate suit for seeking adjudication of collateral matter which is not substantial issue in the suit, into which he seeks insertion. It is also observed that the fact that the findings will indirectly affect the intervener is also not a good ground for impleading a person as party. In that the plaintiff filed a suit against her grandfather for declaration to be owner of 1 n the basis of family settlement. Widow of grandson filed a petition for impleadment claiming that suit land had already been transferred to the grandson through a civil suit. The High Court observed that the controversy relating to factum whether land was earlier transferred to grandson or grand-daughter cannot be effectively decided without impleading the widow of the grandson. Hence the plaintiffs were ordered to implead the applicant as party.
13. In Ved Kumar (supra) it is observed by a Single Bench of this Court that basic purpose underlying the procedural law is the interest of justice. If the Court is convinced that in a particular situation, interests of justice require that a party should be impleaded, technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way. Interpreting Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC it is observed that a person can be added as a party where Court finds that his presence is necessary to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. To avoid multiplicity of suits, it would be highly inequitable to relegate the applicant to seek redress by filing a separate suit.
14. In this , as I have mentioned above, the plaintiffs as well as applicant respondent Karnail Singh are claiming title in the suit 1 n the basis of a family settlement which took place 2/3 years ago. Thus, in my considered view, the presence of applicant-respondent-Karnail Singh is necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. The trial Court has not fallen into any error in allowing the petition of Karnail Singh.
15. Thus, finding no merit in this revision, it is quantified at Rs. 500/-.