NEELAM DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge impugned order dated 12.01.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-CJM, Fatehabad, whereby, the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC by defendants No.3 and 4 has been allowed and they have been impleaded as defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the civil suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against show cause notice issued to him.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present revision petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff has challenged the show cause notice issued by defendant No.2 i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Fatehabad vide letter dated 01.09.2016 on the basis of enquiry report submitted by District Development and Panchayat Officer, Fatehabad, whereby, the certificate submitted by the petitioner for contesting the election was found to be fake and fictitious. The petitioner has challenged the procedure adopted by respondent No.2 by stating that the procedure adopted was contrary to law and without jurisdiction. In the civil suit, the petitioner-plaintiff has arrayed State of Haryana through Collector, Fatehabad and Deputy Commissioner, Fatehabad as defendants. During pendency of the suit, defendants No.3 and 4 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleading them as party on the ground that they being necessary party are going to be effected by the decision and they will suffer irreparable loss in case, the suit is decided in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. Reply to the application was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff by raising certain grounds and ultimately, vide order dated 101.2017, the application was allowed and defendants No.3 and 4 were allowed to be impleaded as party, which has been challenged by way of filing the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged only the show cause notice issued by respondent No.2 and nothing has been sought against defendants No.3 and 4. Learned counsel also submits that no prejudice is going to be caused to defendants No.3 and 4 and they have no right to interfere in the proceedings as the matter is between the petitioner and respondent No.2 only.