Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: VII,11,I,9,10,VI,17

Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section: XVII,135

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42,54

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. VII, R. 11, O.I, Rr. 9 & 10 & O.VI, R. 17---Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 135---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Shamilat Deh--Suit for declaration alongwith permanent and mandatory injunction---Misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary party---Amendments in pleadings---Scope--Application for rejection of plaint was accepted on the grounds that neither relief of possession was claimed in the suit, nor the entire propriety body of the Shamilat Deh was impleaded as party---Appellate Court set aside order of rejection of plaint and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision on merits---Validity---Cosharer in exclusive possession of a certain portion of joint land can retain possession of the same to the extent of his shares, so long as there is no official partition between the co-sharers by metes and bounds---Suit filed by a co-owner under the provisions of S. 42 read with S. 54 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, is maintainable, who is in possession of a piece of Shamilat land, which has not yet been partitioned and there is a denial to his title and threat to his possession by the other members of the proprietary body---Plaint cannot be rejected for want of impleadment of entire proprietary body of the village because the necessary and proper party can be impleaded by the Court, at any stage, of the proceedings in order to pass an effective decree in terms of the provisions of O. 1, R. 10, C.P.C.--No suit shall be defeated on account of mis-joinder or non-joinder of the necessary parties, rather, the courts are mandated to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute, taking into account the specific facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the rights and interests of the parties directly involved therein, as postulated by O.1, R. 9 of C.P.C.---Plaint could not be rejected merely for want of non-seeking therein a consequential relief, despite being mandatory in such like suits, rather, the Trial Court could direct the plaintiff to amend his plaint by including consequential relief therein in order to secure ends of justice---Suit cannot be dismissed on account of any defect in…