(115) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:25.02.2026 S. N. EDUCATIONAL TRUST ...Petitioner Vs.

BRAHMAN SABHA HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-7), whereby the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by Defendant No.4, Ravinder Sharma, for impleading him in place of the deceased President of the plaintiff-society, was allowed. The petitioner contends that the said order was passed in an illegal and arbitrary manner, without proper appreciation of the facts and evidence on record by the learned Trial Court.

2. Briefly stated, the suit was filed by the Brahman Sabha, Haryana, through its President, Baljit Sharma, seeking a declaration and mandatory injunction, along with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The suit was contested by the petitioner/defendant No.2. During the pendency of the suit, when the matter was posted for the evidence of the plaintiff, an application was filed by one Ashwani Sharma, claiming to have been appointed as the President of the plaintiff society vide a Board Resolution dated 09.06.2024. This application was subsequently withdrawn by the counsel for the plaintiff on 09.04.2025, with the statement that the President of the plaintiff society had been changed. Thereafter, the plaintiff/Sabha, allegedly in collusion with defendant No.4, filed another application seeking to implead defendant No.4 in place of the deceased President of the plaintiff society and to delete the name of defendant No.4 from the array of defendants. The petitioner/defendant No.2 strenuously contested the application, raising a specific plea that defendant No.4 could not be impleaded or substituted in place of the President of the plaintiff society, and that such impleadment was not permissible under law. Despite the objections and specific contentions raised by the petitioner, the learned Civil Judge, without adequately considering the legal and factual objections, allowed the application vide the impugned order dated 15.10.2025. The petitioner contends that the order was passed in a legally unsustainable manner, ignoring both the objections and the evidence on record, thereby causing prejudice to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the learned Civil Judge committed a grave legal error by failing to consider that, in the original suit, the plaintiff society had specifically claimed relief against Defendant No.4 in the form of a mandatory injunction directing Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 to appoint a Pujari for worship and to look after the temple as well as its property. When a relief has been claimed against Defendant No.4, it is legally impermissible for the same person to be impleaded as the President of the plaintiff society. It was further submitted that the learned Civil Judge overlooked the earlier application filed by Ashwani Sharma, claiming himself to be the President of the plaintiff society, which had been withdrawn without seeking permission to file a fresh application on the same grounds. Moreover, the petitioner emphasized that the suit of the plaintiff society stood abated, as the legal heir of the deceased President was not impleaded within 90 days from the date of death of the President, as required under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC read with Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In view of this, the present suit cannot be said to be maintainable, and the plaintiff society lacks locus standi to continue the proceedings or to file the application for impleading defendant No.4 as its President.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone throu