The High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by an owner of suit land challenging an order allowing the impleadment of the State of Haryana as a necessary party in a suit involving lease and land issues, finding no merit.
The revision petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CR 867/2015
1
116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision:09.02.2015.
Ajmer Singh
.............Petitioner
v.
M/s Shree Sangmeshwar Mahadev and others
.............Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:Mr.Arvind Bansal,Advocate for the petitioner
Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)
Defendant no.3, owner of the suit land is in revision assailing the order dated 13.1.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kaithal whereby application of the plaintiff for impleading State of Haryana through Collector/ Deputy Commissioner,Kaithal, has been allowed.
It is apparent that the respondent/plaintiff-a partnership firm has filed a suit seeking to restrain defendant no.3 from executing any fresh lease deed in favour of defendant no.4 since it already has a lease deed in its favour although it is stated to have expired. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff is operating a brick kiln in the suit land under a licence issued by the State of Haryana. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner/defendant no.3 had taken an objection in his written statement regarding non-joinder of the necessary parties.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner thisRAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.02.11 11:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.
CR 867/2015 2 116
Court finds that the present revision petition is devoid of any merits.
In the facts of the case the learned trial court has rightly noticed that State is a necessary party without whom the suit cannot proceed. No doubt, the application for impleadment has been made at a later stage, however, no prejudice appears to have been caused to the petitioner/defendant no.3.
Dismissed.
09.02.2015 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge
RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.02.11 11:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition challenging the impleadment of the State as a necessary party has any merit.
Whether the delay in making the application for impleadment caused any prejudice to the petitioner.
Ajmer Singh
M/s Shree Sangmeshwar Mahadev and others
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
