HARCHARAN SINGH Vs. S BHAGAT SINGH
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 1-6-1998 passed by the learned Musniff, Kathua, whereby he has rejected the application of the applicant for impleading him as party-defendant in the suit. Facts barely needed for the disposal of the Revision Petition are that plaintiff is the son of defendant-1, who has filed the suit against his father claiming two reliefs. 1) Relief of declaration to the effect that the document 'Farkhatti' alleged to be executed by defendant No. 1 be declared as cancelled, and 2) defendants be restrained from changing and alienating the existing property. It may be mentioned here that respondents 5 and 6 are co-sharers and other respondents are strangers. Defendant No. 1 after executing the 'Farkhatti' has executed power of attorney in favour of other respondents. Applicant is also the son of defendant No. 1, who has alleged that he is in possession of chunk of land in Khasra No. 19, so no decree can be passed against him unless he is made a party in the suit. It is a fact that the applicant is also a co-sharer.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that as he is in possession of land under Khasra No. 19, so no final adjudication can be made with regard to the suit property without impleading him as party. Across the table learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has made a categorical statement that he seeks no relief from the applicant, so it cannot be thrust upon the plaintiff to add him as a party.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.