1. Application for impleadment in suit for permanent injunction against municipal corporation — dismissed by trial court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2880
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA
DHARAMPAL KAPOOR AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
SURINDER KUMAR AND ORS – Respondent
CMPMO/537/2025
Important Points
The court affirmed that a plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead parties who fail the 'necessary' or 'proper' party tests. It also reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not an appellate review for correcting everyday factual or legal errors.
Subject
Civil Law - Civil Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 - Impleadment of parties - Necessary and Proper Party - Dominus Litis - The plaintiff is the master of the suit and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom no relief is sought unless that person is a necessary or proper party. A 'necessary party' is one in whose absence no effective decree can be passed; a 'proper party' is one whose presence enables the court to completely and effectively adjudicate the dispute. Two tests for determining a necessary party: (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved; (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party. (Paras 20, 21, 22)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court - The power under Article 227 is to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. It is not an appellate power to reappreciate evidence or correct every error of fact, but a correctional jurisdiction used in cases of grave injustice, failure of justice, jurisdictional error, or where the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person could reach such a conclusion. (Paras 24, 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
A suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by a plaintiff against a statutory authority to prevent the demolition of a building. Third parties filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be impleaded as defendants, claiming ownership interests and alleging that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts and carried out illegal construction. The trial court dismissed the impleadment application. The applicants challenged this order before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The dispute in the suit is primarily between the plaintiff and the statutory authority regarding the validity of a notice issued under the relevant Municipal Act. The applicants failed to satisfy the tests of being necessary or proper parties as no relief was sought against them, and an effective decree could be passed in their absence. Prior litigations had already adjudicated the title of the plaintiff through adverse possession, and any new grievances regarding encroachment must be sought through separate appropriate proceedings.
Issues: Whether the applicants were necessary or proper parties to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and whether the trial court's order was liable to be interfered with under the supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff, as dominus litis, chooses whom to litigate against. A party cannot be added against the plaintiff's wishes unless they are必要 or proper parties. Since the core issue is the legality of a notice issued by a statutory body, third-party ownership claims do not make them necessary parties. Furthermore, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit the High Court to act as a first appeal to substitute its own findings of fact for those of the trial court.
Result: Petition dismissed.
(B) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court - The power under Article 227 is to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. It is not an appellate power to reappreciate evidence or correct every error of fact, but a correctional jurisdiction used in cases of grave injustice, failure of justice, jurisdictional error, or where the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person could reach such a conclusion. (Paras 24, 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
A suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by a plaintiff against a statutory authority to prevent the demolition of a building. Third parties filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be impleaded as defendants, claiming ownership interests and alleging that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts and carried out illegal construction. The trial court dismissed the impleadment application. The applicants challenged this order before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The dispute in the suit is primarily between the plaintiff and the statutory authority regarding the validity of a notice issued under the relevant Municipal Act. The applicants failed to satisfy the tests of being necessary or proper parties as no relief was sought against them, and an effective decree could be passed in their absence. Prior litigations had already adjudicated the title of the plaintiff through adverse possession, and any new grievances regarding encroachment must be sought through separate appropriate proceedings.
Issues: Whether the applicants were necessary or proper parties to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and whether the trial court's order was liable to be interfered with under the supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff, as dominus litis, chooses whom to litigate against. A party cannot be added against the plaintiff's wishes unless they are必要 or proper parties. Since the core issue is the legality of a notice issued by a statutory body, third-party ownership claims do not make them necessary parties. Furthermore, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit the High Court to act as a first appeal to substitute its own findings of fact for those of the trial court.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
- civil procedure
- injunction
- property law
- municipal law
Petitioner Advocates:Sumit Sood Gautam Sood Rohit ,Respondent Advocate: NEMO Mukul Sood Naresh Sharma Surinder Parkash Sharma
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claim necessary party due to prior title decrees; respondents argue plaintiff is dominus litis and impleadment unnecessary. (Para 10 , 11 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
3. Petition dismissed; trial court order upheld — petitioners neither necessary nor proper party. Parties to bear own costs. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. What are the tests for determining a 'necessary party' under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC?
Two tests: (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party; (2) no effective decree can be passed in their absence. (Para 20 , 21 )
5. Can a third party be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff who is dominus litis?
No, a plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom no relief is sought unless the person is necessary or proper party. (Para 21 , 22 )
6. What is the scope of High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution?
It is correctional, not appellate — exercised sparingly to correct grave dereliction, flagrant abuse, or perverse findings, not to reappreciate evidence. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 )
7. Who is a 'proper party' under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC?
A proper party is one whose presence enables the court to completely, effectively, and adequately adjudicate all matters in dispute, though not a necessary party. (Para 22 )
8. Is a person with a likely future right in suit property considered a necessary party?
No, such a person is neither necessary nor proper party and cannot be impleaded against plaintiff's wishes. (Para 22 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
2026:HHC:19772
CMPMO No.537 of 2025
Reserved on: 11.05.2026
Decided on: 26.05.2026
Dharampal Kapoor & others ….Petitioners
Versus
Surinder Kumar & others ...Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioners: Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Naresh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Mr. Surinder Prakash, Legal Aid Counsel, for respondent No.3.
Romesh Verma, Judge
1. The present petition arises out of the order as passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.3, Shimla, whereby an application filed by the present petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has been ordered to be dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the present respondent No.1 filed a suit before the learned trial Court against the Municipal Corporation, Shimla (defendant No.1) and Budh Ram (proforma defendant) for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from damaging, demolishing the roof or any other portion of building or interfering in any manner with the building/structure built upon Khasra No.527 at Mohal and Up Mohal Ridge, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff, along with profforma defendants, Smt. Kanta and Smt. Asha are owners-in-possession of the house/building built upon the land comprised in Khasra No.527, situated at Mohal and Up Mohal Ridge, Tehsil and District Shimla. Smt. Asha and Smt. Kanta are sisters of the plaintiff and proforma defendant and they appointed the plaintiff as their attorney on 31.07.2019.
3. As per the plaintiff, the building was an old construction, and the materials used in the building, more particularly, in the roof, have outlived its life. The plaintiff and proforma defendant on 22.08.2019 approached defendant No.1 with a request to permit them to repair the roof of the building, as it may collapse due to its precarious condition. If the necessary repairs are not carried out, it will endanger the lives of the occupants. Though, the said application was diarized by the plaintiff, however, nothing has been heard from the side of defendant No.1. In the intervening night of 09.02.2024 to 10.02.2024, a portion of roof and supporting wall gave way, thereby endangering the lives of occupants residing in the suit premises, The wooden planks on which the roof rested gave way, which was the major reason for the collapse of roof. On account of the collapse, the plaintiff repaired the roof by replacing old tins with new ones, as the old tins, wood, andf other materials used in the building had outlived its life with the passage of time. The neighbours of the plaintiff and proforma defendant, who are inimical to the plaintiff, filed a complaint before respondent No.1/ defendant. Acting upon the said complaint, a notice under Section 254(1) of Municipal Corporation Act was issued and duly replied to, thereby clarifying all the facts diarized by defendant No.1.
4. In the plaint, it was averred that the plaintiff and proforma defendant are absolute owners-in-possession of the suit premises. They have also applied for permission and submitted all the relevant and, necessary documents to the competent authority, from whom permission has been sought. Defendant No.1, through its officials, is now threatening to demolish the entire roof and walls of the building of the plaintiff without any plausible reason. Therefore, decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant No.1, its officials, workers, employees or any other persons claiming through or under it from damaging, demolishing roof and portions of wall of building was sought from the learned trial Court.
5. Along with the suit, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of ad interim injunction by restraining defendant No.1, its officials, workers, employees
