##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

106 CR-994-2026

Date of Decision.:31.01.2026

Didar Singh …..Pe--oner

Vs.

Hardeep Singh and Others .….Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. CS-870-2023 titled

“Didar Singh and another versus Hardeep Singh and another”, pending

before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shaheed Bhagat Singh

Nagar. He has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing the

order dated 23.01.2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby the learned Trial Court

allowed the application (Annexure P-6) filed by respondent No.3 Smt.

Sukhvinder Kaur, under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

seeking her impleadment as a party to the suit.

2.1 Conten-ons of the Pe--oner : Learned counsel for the

petitioner contends that the suit property was originally owned by Sant

Ram, father of the plaintiff and grandfather of the defendants. It is pleaded

that Sant Ram executed a Will dated 05.01.1979, whereby the property

was bequeathed in favour of his two sons and his wife, Pritam Kaur. Upon

the death of Santokh Singh, his share devolved upon the defendants as his

legal heirs. On this basis, the petitioner instituted the present suit seeking

partition of the joint property between himself and the defendants.

2.2 It is further argued that respondent No.3 Smt. Sukhvinder

1 of 4

::: Downloaded on - 15-02-2026 20:56:46 :::

CR-994-2026 -2-

Kaur, who is daughter of Sant Ram and sister of the petitioner, along with

other sisters, namely Nachhatar Kaur and Gurbax Kaur, had earlier filed a

separate suit claiming share in the same property. Since the said suit was

dismissed, respondent No.3 has no subsisting right to claim any interest

and cannot be permiAed to be impleaded, particularly when the petitioner,

being the dominus li s, does not seek any relief against her.

2.3 Reliance has been placed upon Sudhamayee Pa(cid:11)naik and

Others vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others, 2022 (17) SCC 286; Babubhai

Mohanlal Choksey (dead) through LRs vs. Pransukhlal Mohanlal Choksey

(dead) through LRs and Others, Law Finder Doc ID #2780478; and Ranvir

Singh vs. Jyo0 Arora and Others, 2023 (2) RCR (Civil) 463, to contend that a

third party cannot be forced upon the plaintiff, when such party has no

concern with the dispute, or has already agitated the issue by way of an

independent suit.

3. Considera-on by the Court : ABer hearing learned counsel for

the petitioner and perusing the record, this Court finds no merit in the

revision petition.

4. Order I Rule 10 CPC empowers the Court to implead a person

whose presence is necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of

the questions involved in the suit. While it is true that the plaintiff is

ordinarily the dominus li s, this principle is not absolute and must yield

where the nature of the suit itself requires the presence of all persons

having a legal interest in the subject-maAer.

5. A suit for partition stands on a different footing from other civil

suits. In partition proceedings, all co-sharers and persons claiming a share

in the property are necessary parties, as any decree passed in their absence

would be ineffective, incomplete, and susceptible to further litigation.

6. In present case, as per the admiAed case of the petitioner

himself, the property in dispute was once owned by Sant Ram. It is also

2 of 4

::: Downloaded on - 15-02-2026 20:56:47 :::

CR-994-2026 -3-

undisputed that respondent No.3 Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur, is the daughter of

Sant Ram. Her application under Order I Rule 10 CPC categorically states

that although she had earlier instituted a suit claiming her share, the same

was withdrawn as the plaintiff and the deceased brother Santokh Singh had

agreed to give her share. Thus, the earlier suit was not adjudicated on

merits, and therefore, cannot operate as res judicata, or as a bar to her

impleadment.

7. Moreover, there is nothing o