S. No.127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Civil Revision No.1472 of 2025 Date of Decision:11.03.2025 Janak Singh .....Pe,,oner Vs.

Vijay Kumari and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral)

By way of this revision filed under Ar(cid:28)cle 227 of the Cons(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on of India, pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner has assailed order dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure P.1) passed by the Appellate Court of learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby applica(cid:28)on under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner for his impleadment in the pending appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.544 of 2016 (cid:28)tled “Vijay Kumari Vs.

Kamal Thakur and others” was dismissed.

2. As the paper book would reveal, suit property belonged to one Smt. Parwa(cid:28). Plain(cid:28)ff No.1 and the four defendants are the children of said Parwa(cid:28). Plain(cid:28)ff No.2 is the son of plain(cid:28)ff No.1. By filing the suit on 23.01.2007, plain(cid:28)ffs claimed the suit property on the basis of registered Will dated 09.01.2006 purported to be executed by Smt. Parwa(cid:28) in their favour. On the other hand, defendants contested the suit by dispu(cid:28)ng the Will; and that Muta(cid:28)on No.23696 has been rightly sanc(cid:28)oned in favour of plain(cid:28)ff No.1 and defendants in equal shares on the basis of natural succession. A;er trial, the suit was dismissed on 15.09.2016.

3.1 Civil Appeal No.544 of 2016 filed by the plain(cid:28)ffs is pending before District Judge, Hoshiarpur, where the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner moved an applica(cid:28)on under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC contending that defendant No.1 – Kamal Thakur and defendant No.4 – Ved Kumari had sold 07 marlas 06 sarsai land out of the suit property in his (applicant’s) favour vide sale deed dated 24.09.2010 for considera(cid:28)on of 5,30,000/- and on that basis, Muta(cid:28)on No.25395 was sanc(cid:28)oned and he is, thus, owner in possession of the said 07 marla 06 sarsai of land. His vendors had not disclosed to him about pendency of the suit and that a;er dismissal of the suit, plain(cid:28)ffs were claiming to have compromised the maAer with the vendors of the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner and in case they succeed in geBng the muta(cid:28)on favouring the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner cancelled, he would suffer irreparable loss.

3.2 The applica(cid:28)on was opposed by the appellants- plain(cid:28)ffs.

3.3 The learned District Judge by way of the impugned order dated

04.02.2025 has dismissed the applica(cid:28)on.

4. Assailing the order, it is contended by learned counsel for the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner that the Appellate Court has inherent power to permit impleadment of the par(cid:28)es under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and Sec(cid:28)on 107(2) CPC even at the appellate stage, if their presence is necessary for effec(cid:28)ve and complete adjudica(cid:28)on of the dispute. Learned counsel has referred to a judgment of this Court in Surjit Kaur Loety Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2025 AIR CC 533.(cid:1)It is contended further that as pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner is vendee pendente-lite and was not aware about pendency of the suit, his vendors having not told him in this regard, so his valuable rights are involved and so, the impugned order deserve to be set aside.

5. A;er considering the conten(cid:28)ons of learned counsel for the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner, this Court does not find merit in the same.

6. It is no doubt true that Appellate Court has inherent power to permit impleadment of the par(cid:28)es under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and Sec(cid:28)on 107(2) CPC even at the appellate stage, if their presence is necessary for effec(cid:28)ve and complete adjudica(cid:28)on of the dispute but it is not an absolute Rule and it depends upon facts and circumstances of each case.

7. In the present case, as the paper book would reveal that suit was filed in January, 2007. Pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on