High Court of Punjab and HaryanaRSA/1283/1991allowed

(O&M)Jeet Ram & ORS v. Nihal Singh & ORS

2025-09-24Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal8 pages

#$%& %&'

#$#($) "

#$ *%& %&'

+ ,- %

. /-

# $

# &

. /-

' ( " & #

) & & * +,!# -

( & " #&

!' .! / .

! ! # & " #!

- # 0 (# #&# & #

&& 1 &

& 2# &"

4 0567'89:%

&&2

4! # 05'6'89:%&

'#" !

0 ;

"! #

0 < !

#& 3 %&

$ && 3 1

& !" #

& & .

%# ! %&

-# ! ## # &&

$ &&

> & &&

5 / # 2 &

& ! .

& & &

! "

&&#" #

' ? &&"

< "

@$$ 0 ? &&

@$% '

? &

" "

&# & ! ##

&2 # 1 " @$%0 'A ? & @$%0

'. ? &

&& #

& &"

& &&#@$%0 3 & 4 ( &&

#" # &#"#

B # # " #

& !

! ! " #& # !

" # # "

#! & &

%# ! ! & # &> ':8!> '84 # ! # "

: . & -

#! & ! # #

! & '

& #

# ( # &.

< #&2

7 C" & ; " # 2 & !" #

# 2 " " #

& ! ! " 2 -

# & #

9 ? # &#

& ! $ -

; !#

# 5' &$ - .

#!'8'9!

# '66 &.

&."$ # C # 2!

# # - & .

1$2131245

1" 64 #(74 - 1$"

!% 41$" 521 1$"

&8 '9!&

5 #"5

5$)

) " 64 #(74 - !% 1:

1 214 1$"

& 90 1$"

16 $"

1$"

!% 1 #3 1$"

)1;

C " &

# !

< &

#& 8 D & # -

C #

# # > ':8

! # > .

< !

> D & &

& ! < &

&& '795'88'

A # &.

'6 (

& > ! > ':8

70!

" #

> ':8! &

2 !

'' C &

& # # & # & (;

! 1:

1 (< !% ($45 1$"

8 ''!# ! & # &"

? # &"

& ! # &

# ! & !

& ## # 0 4

# &# # ! .

! %" A # 1$71 5$74 !% 1 5$31$ 5$740 9 - 983!

*C #

#! & $ - # & & & ! ! &"

# + '0 #! <

&> ':8

70 #

> ':8! & "> 70 ##

" "

& &

# > ':8 &"

> 70 &"

&&!

'0' D & &#

# ! "

A # &.

5$74 1$"

!% 1 5 5$74 1$"

$#64 9 ! #

&%%&*0 (6 1;

56165#$ #%&*++99&& C ## #! "

&& ! &&E #

$': '8

"16.

Apart from above, the suit was filed on 23.08.1990, wherein vendor-Smt. Misri was impleaded as defendant No.6. However, by way of the statement made on 11.12.1990, plaintiff gave up said defendant No.6 as unnecessary party. It is required to be seen as to what is the effect of non- joining of the vendordefendant in a suit for pre-emption. 17.

The said issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jhabbar Singh's case (supra) and it has been held as under:-

13. As held by this Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi AIR 1995 SC 724, necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively, and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and

final decision on the ques"on involved in the proceedings. When a right to pre-empt, the sale was claimed by the plaintiff Jagtar Singh as a co-sharer in the lands along with the owner Jit Singh, alleging that the mandatory provisions contained in Section 19 i.e., for giving notice to the preemptor, was not complied with by the owner or seller Jit Singh, his presence as the party defendant was desirable along with the other defendants Jhabbar Singh and Others, to effectively and finally decide the disputes between the par"es. Though, Order 1 Rule 9 states that no suit shall be defeated by reasons of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, care must be taken by the court to ensure that all the par"es, be it the plaintiff for the defendant, whose presence is necessary for complete and final adjudication on the issues involved in the suit, are before the court. That is the reason why the courts are empowered to strike out or add par"es, at any stage of the proceedings as per Order 1. Rule

10. C.P.C."

18.

It is clear from the above-said legal position on explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when a right to pre-empt the sale is claimed by the plaintiff, the presence of the owner as a party defendant is desirable alongwith other defendants to effectively and finally decide the dispute between the par"es. Although, as per order I Rule 9 CPC, no suit is to be defeated by reason of mis-joinder or non-joinder of the par"es, but it is required for the Court to ensure that all the par"es, be it the plaintiff or the defendant, whose presence is necessary for

complete and final adjudication on the issues involved in the suit are before the Court.

19.

In the present case, it was specifically pleaded by the plaintiffpre-emptor that prior to sale, the vendor-defendant N: 6 had not given him any prior notice. Still, the vendor-defendant - Smt. Misri had been given up by the plaintiff. As such, the suit becomes bad for non-joinder of the necessary party, as in the absence of the vendor, the suit cannot be effectively and finally decided."

'3 #!

; !F !

05'6'89:

1 .

< !

# C " && !

# ## !

'5 # #

& #

# # !&

# & # !

&##

. /- *%& %&'

1( 1!

# #6 Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No