IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (129)

CR-3892-2025 Date of Decision: - 07.07.2025 Satnam Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Nafe Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Mohit, Advocate, for the petitioners.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat in Civil Suit No.620 of 2020, vide which the application dated 04.02.2021 (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading them as defendants in the suit has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are co-sharers in possession of the property in question and respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction without impleading the present petitioners as parties. It is further submitted that the petitioners had moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading them as parties to the suit but the trial Court vide order dated 19.04.2025 had dismissed the said application. It is argued that the impugned order dated 19.04.2025 is against law and deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading them as parties to the suit deserves to be allowed.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and has perused the paper-book and finds that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to the upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons detailed hereinafter.

4. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondents No.2 to 4/defendants and not against the present petitioners. The prayer made in the said suit is reproduced herein below: -

“SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION restraining the defendants forever from any kind of encroachment and creating any hindrance/obstruction in the peaceful, continuous, actual, exclusive, ownership, physical possession of the plaintiff over the suit property mentioned below in any manner whatsoever.

THE SUIT PROPERTY IS AS UNDER:

Property/House measuring 100 Sq. Yrds (2 Biswa) comprised in Khasra No.3795, situated within the revenue estate of Taraf Insrar, Panipat, within M.C. Limits, Panipat, consisting therein one room (office), shop, latrine-bathroom, installed gate and the dimensions and boundaries of the suit property is as under: -

BOUNDARIES MEASUREMENT North: Road 12 Mtrs. wide South: House of Sukhbir Singh & Anil sons of Nafe Singh East: Rasta 30 Mtrs.

West: Road 12 Mtrs.”

A perusal of the above would show that the only relief which has been sought by respondent No.1/plaintiff is for restraining the defendants therein (which does not include the present petitioners) from raising any kind of encroachment and creating any hindrance/obstruction in the peaceful, continuous, actual, etc., physical possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, which is a house measuring 100 sq. yards, comprised in khasra No.3795, situated within the revenue estate of Taraf Insrar, Panipat, within M.C. Limits, Panipat.

5. It is not disputed that no relief has been claimed against the present petitioners in the said suit. The trial Court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC by observing that since no relief has been sought against the present petitioners, thus, there is no requirement of impleading them as parties and moreover, since the plaintiff is dominus litis, he cannot be compelled to litigate against persons who are not interfering in his possession. It was also observed that the relief of injunction is a personal right, which is sought by the plaintiff against an individual. Surpr