Back
2026 Supreme(P&H) 43
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.
Kulwant Singh – Appellant
Versus
Balkar Singh and Others – Respondents
CR No. 2603 of 2026
Decided On : 08-04-2026
For the Appellants : S.S. Swaich, Deepa Negi, Deepika, Ishani Goyal, Navjot Kaur
Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party may be impleaded only if they are necessary for an effective decree or proper for complete adjudication. A person claiming through a different lineage in a separate suit is not a necessary party to a dispute regarding a specific will.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10(2) - Impleadment of parties - Necessary and proper party - Principles for addition of parties - A necessary party is one without whom no effective decree can be passed, while a proper party is one whose presence is required for complete adjudication - Discretion of court to add parties must be exercised based on facts and circumstances to ensure final adjudication of issues. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Civil Procedure - Impleadment in counterclaim - Applicant seeking impleadment in a suit involving inheritance of a specific individual - Applicant not a legal heir of the deceased and claiming through a different lineage - Presence of applicant not essential for determining the validity of the disputed will - Mere pendency of separate litigation regarding the same property does not automatically make a person a necessary or proper party. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed challenging the validity of a will executed by a deceased individual. The defendants filed a counterclaim seeking possession and mesne profits. An applicant sought to be impleaded as a defendant in the counterclaim, asserting a claim to the same property based on a separate pending litigation involving a different ancestor. The trial court dismissed the application.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant was not a legal heir of the deceased whose will was under challenge. The applicant's claim pertained to a different inheritance line. The court held that the applicant's presence was not essential for the adjudication of the current dispute and that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in rejecting the application.
Issues: Whether the applicant is a necessary or proper party to be impleaded in the counterclaim under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to implead parties is a judicial discretion to be exercised only when a party is necessary for an effective decree or proper for complete adjudication. Since the applicant's claim is based on a different lineage and does not affect the validity of the will in question, the applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the suit and current procedural status. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. criteria for defining necessary and proper parties under order 1 rule 10(2) cpc. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. individual assessment of party interest and necessity for adjudication. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. final outcome and disposal of the petition. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 02.03.2026 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), SAS Nagar, Mohali vide which an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 moved by the petitioner for impleading him as a defendant in the counterclaim filed in Civil Suit No. 999 of 2019 titled Balkar Singh and another Vs. Lakhwinder Singh , has been dismissed.
2. The said suit has been instituted by one Lakhwinder Singh to the effect that the Will dated 20.02.2017 executed by his father namely Darshan Singh in favour of defendants Balkar Singh and Surjit Kaur is illegal, null and void and the same is liable to be cancelled/set aside as the same has been executed by late Shri Darshan Singh only to deprive the plaintiff of his right in the suit property by birth which was ancestral Joint Hindu Family, coparcenary property in the hands of the said Darshan Singh.
3. Defendants have filed their written statement-cum- counterclaim to the effect that they are joint owners in possession of the suit property and a decree for mandatory injunction has been sought for directing the plaintiff to hand over the possession of the first floor of the house to them alongwith a suit for recovery of Rs.95,000/- towards mesne profit alongwith interest.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petition in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs. Prakasan & Ors. 2025 (3) RCR (Civil) 176 has explained the scope of Order 1 Rule 10(2) as under:
"45. The power to strike out or add parties under Sub-rule (2) can be exercised by the court on an application made by the parties before it, or upon an application by a third party who desires to be added as a party, or even suo motu. Explaining the object underlying Order I Rule 10, this Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524 observed thus:
6. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to the Court to meet every case of defect of parties and is not affected by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. 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 question involved in the proceeding. The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case."
6. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, thus empowers courts to add, substitute, or strike out parties to a suit at any stage to ensure necessary parties are present for complete adjudication. Under sub-rule (1), if a suit is filed by the wrong person as plaintiff or if there is uncertainty regarding the correct plaintiff, the Court may substitute or add the right person, provided the mistake was made in good faith and the change is essential to determining the real matter in dispute. At any stage of the legal process, under sub-rule (2), the Court has the power, either on its own or through an application, to remove the name of any party who was improperly included or to add any person who should have been joined or whose presence is necessary for a final
