VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 7.4.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, vide which the application moved by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading them as parties to the suit has been declined.
(2.) THE application was moved by the applicant-petitioners herein for being impleaded as a party to the suit on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein has filed another suit for declaration and permanent injunction titled as Surinder Mohan Arora v. Amit Uppal and others in which Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar, is also a party as defendant No. 4. In the said suit, a specific plea has been taken by the applicant-petitioners that they are owners in possession of the land i.e. plot measuring 242 sq. yards falling in Khasra Nos. 613 and 618 which is a part of plot No. 278 of which the total area is 592 sq. yards, situated in the area of Tungabala Urban, Shastri Nagar, Tehsil and District Amritsar. The said plot has been purchased by way of two registered sale-deeds for valuable consideration on 12.7.2000. It was further claimed that they were in lawful possession of the property as owners thereof. It was the further case of the applicant-petitioners that after the purchase of the said plot, they had applied for sanction of plan for raising construction from Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and 'No Objection Certificate' has been issued by the Improvement Trust, Amritsar. The case of the applicant-petitioners is that on account of mala fide intention to illegally and unlawfully grab the property of the petitioners, the plaintiff respondent has raised a wall without any right in order to block the passage of the applicant-petitioners and accordingly a report was made to the Police on 17th of September, 2002 and FIR No. 365 dated 19.10.2002 under Sections 506/511/379/447 IPC has been registered with Police Station, Civil LInes, Amritsar.
(3.) THE said application was contested by the plaintiff-respondent on the plea that that he was dominus litus and, therefore, cannot be compelled to fight the litigation against a person whom he has not selected to array as a defendant. It was the further case of the plaintiff that the suit was merely for mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to allot him the strip of land at reserve price measuring 217.5 sq. yards forming part of Khasra Nos. 618 and 613 adjoining to his plot No. 278. It was also the case of the plaintiff-respondent that no relief was claimed against the applicants.;