IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (122 Date of Decision:-25.08.2025 OM PARKASH SINGH … Petitioner Versus ADISHWAR JAIN AND OTHERS ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to set aside the order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-14), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. By way of the impugned order, the learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by respondent No.3, wherein a prayer was made for impleadment as defendant No.3 in the suit proceedings (Annexure P-13).

1.1 The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the said order, contending that the impleadment of respondent No.3 as a party defendant in the ongoing civil suit is unwarranted and not in accordance with law. Hence, the petitioner seeks appropriate intervention and relief for setting aside the said order of the learned Civil Judge, to prevent miscarriage of justice and to ensure that the proceedings are conducted in a fair and lawful manner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent Adishwar Jain claiming himself to be tenant in possession of properties in dispute and claims permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession over suit property. During the pendency of the suit, he moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading respondent M/s India Bulls Housing Finance Limited Company as defendant No.2 that application was allowed and M/s India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. was impleaded as a party. When defendant No.2 moved application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, petitioner made statement withdrawing the suit against defendant No.2 but that was not allowed to be withdrawn on the ground that defendant No.2 is necessary party and petitioner assailed the order vide CR-5694-2018, the same was dismissed. Thereafter an application was filed by M/s India Bulls Assets Reconstruction Company Limited claiming that they had been assigned the rights of defendant No.2, so they be impleaded as party by substituting it in place of respondent No.2 and during the pendency of that application, respondent No.2 made a statement that debt has been further assigned and application has become infructuous. Respondent No.3 moved application for impleadment on the basis of agreement dated 26.04.2024 that loan has been assigned to the respondent No.3. In civil revision against the order of disallowing permission to withdraw suit against defendant No.2 is pending for final decision and ultimately was allowed on 20.1.2025 vide order, copy of which is (Annexure P-10). A SLP has been filed against that order.

3. M/s India Bulls Assets Reconstruction Company Limited moved petition under SARFAESI Act before District Magistrate on the basis of assignment agreement dated 31.12.2018 and the District Magistrate Directed applicant to deposit requisite stamp fee on the assignment as per Punjab Government Guidelines that order was challenged by the company in CWP- 4921-2020, which is pending adjudication. Respondent No.3 moved application for impleadment as party in the civil suit, after seeking reply, the application was allowed.

4. Aggrieved against order present revision petition has been filed. 5. The order has been assailed on the ground that the case of respondent No.3 is based upon assignment agreement dated 01.02.2018 in favour of M/s India Bulls Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and subsequently to respondent No.3. The agreement is awaiting validity as the same has not been recognized by Additional District Magistrate, Ludhiana and the order of Additional District Magistrate, Ludhiana has been challenged by way of writ petition, which is pend