Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4



SUIT NO.201/2004
IN THE MATTER OF:Shri Balraj Singh


Shri Rajinder Parkash Pahuja & Ors.


This order will dispose of the application moved under
Order 1 rule 10 CPC by Shri Ram Kumar, S/o late Shri Gopi Ram.
The plaintiff as well as the defendants 1 and 2 have filed their
replies to this application opposing it.
I have perused the application and the replies and I
have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsels for the parties.
This suit has been filed by Shri Balraj Singh for declaration
and injunction against Rajinder Parkash Pahuja, Smt. Geeta
Arora, Shri Ravinder Kumar Suri, MCD and the Patwari in respect
of property no.3 Block A, measuring 533 1/3 sq. Yards forming
part of rectangle no.9 Killa NO.13 and 18, situated in the area of

village Possangi Pur, Abadi of Shankar Garden colony, Najafgarh
Road, as shown in the site plan attached to the plaint.
The present applicant Shri Ram Kumar claims that he
had purchased this property from one Rajinder Singh S/o Shri
Rameshwar Nath vide registered sale deed dated 9.10.98 and
had obtained electricity and water connection and had also
raised three rooms bath cum WC boundary wall with two gates.
It is claimed that Rajinder Singh was the general attorney of Shri
Balraj Singh vide deed dated 6.9.96 duly registered. It is claimed
by the applicant that he was the owner in possession of the suit
property to the exclusion of others. It has been stated that the
documents set up by the plaintiff including sale deed dated
10.9.81 were illegal and false.
It is submitted that in order to adjudicate upon the
controversy the controversy involved completely and effectively
and in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation it was expedient and
proper that the applicant be made a party to the present suit.
The plaintiff in his reply had opposed the application
submitting that the applicant could not be permitted to assert his
alleged rights in the property by intervening in the present suit. It

has been submitted that the applicant has come forth with
forged documents. The plaintiff has prayed that the application
be dismissed.
In the reply filed by defendant no.2 it has been
submitted that the application was not maintainable as the
applicant could not intermedel with the present suit on the basis
of a false and fabricated sale deed. It has been submitted that
the defendants no.1 and 2 were the owners of the property vide
registered sale deed dated 10.9.1981 and there could be no
transaction subsequent thereto.

Hence, it is prayed that the

application be dismissed.
From the averments in the application it is clear that the
applicant is seeking an adjudication of his rights and title in
respect of the suit property by setting up a title against both the
plaintiff and the defendants. This cannot be permitted. In the
present suit the plaintiff has sought relief from the defendants as
per the cause title. The plaintiff does not seek any relief against
the applicant. Rather the applicant seeks a relief against the
plaintiff for which he should take independent proceedings.
The plaintiff has denied the execution of any GPA

subsequent to 9.2.96. The defendants no.1 and 2 questioned the
execution of sale deed subsequent to that 10.9.1981. These are
the documents on which the applicant relies. It is therefore, clear
that he has no role in the present suit. The dispute is between the
plaintiff and the defendants and it is their dispute that requires to
be adjudicated. The applicant cannot be impleaded either as a
plaintiff or defendant in this case as his relief is sought from both
the plaintiff and the defendants in this case.

Therefore, the

matter cannot be allowed to be confused by the impleadment

of such a party who sets up independent claim against both
parties to a suit such as the present one.
In the circumstances the application is dismissed. There
is no order as to cost.

Announced in the open court

on this 29th day of November,2007.