IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.10.2025 Batheri alias Bohti and others … Petitioners Versus Vashisht Kumar and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma (Hisarwale), Advocate, Ms. Indu Bala Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Vinayak Atree, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Vineet Sehgal, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2.

Service of respondents No.3 & 4 dispensed with vide order dated 10.03.2017.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 08.02.2017, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurgaon (Annexure P-3), vide which the application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘CPC’) for impleading subsequent purchasers as party-defendants was dismissed.

2. A suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the respondents/ defendants. The petitioners/plaintiffs claimed to be in actual and physical cultivating possession of the suit land measuring 45 kanals and 8 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of Village Garhi Harsaru, Tehsil and District Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’) as Gair Marusi It was averred that the defendants had purchased the suit land from its original owner vide sale deeds dated 09.04.1999, 02.09.2002 and 17.11.2006. The plaintiffs claimed that they had acquired the right of ownership, being occupancy tenants for the last more than 30 years on payment of Chakota. Accordingly, a declaration was sought that the petitioners/plaintiffs had acquired ownership rights as occupancy tenants being Gair Marusi for more than 30 years, and that the names of the respondents/defendants were liable to be deleted from the column of ownership and the names of the petitioners/plaintiffs were to be recorded as owners. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs was also sought.

3. During the pendency of the suit, an application was moved under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, seeking to implead Amit Kumar, Man Mohan and Rambir as defendants. It was averred that during the cross-examination of defendant No.1-Vashist Kumar, it had emerged that a part of the suit land had been sold to the said persons during the pendency of the suit. The following averments were made in the application:-

“3. That defendant no.1 and 2 sold their share of disputed land in favour of Smt. Rameshwari D/o Munshi W/o Mahipal Singh R/o Village Dhorka, Tehsil and District Gurgaon and executed sale deed and sanctioned vide mutation no. 6621 by Asst. Collector, 2nd Grade, Gurgaon on 25.04.2016. (Copy of mutation is attached) and the remaining disputed land share was executed and transferred in favour of Amit Kumar S/o Ram Chander R/o Shanti Nagar, Gurgaon vide mutation no. 6622 sanctioned by the Asst. Collector, 2nd Grade, Gurgaon on 25.04.2016.

(Copy of mutation is attached).

4. That on 25.04.2016, Rameshwari D/o Munshi W/o Mahipal Singh R/o Village Dhorka, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, transferred her share in disputed land in favour of Sh. Man Mohan S/o Mahipal, R/o H. No. 845/22, Gali No. 6, Gandhi Nagar, Gurgaon vide mutation no. 6626 sanctioned by the Asst. Collector, 2nd Grade, Gurgaon on 25.04.2016. (Copy of mutation is attached).

5. That on 23.08.2016, Sh. Man Mohan S/o Mahipal, R/o H. No. 845/22, Gali No. 6, Gandhi Nagar, Gurgaon executed lease deed in favour of Ratabir S/o Ram Karan S/o Manohar Lal R/o Village Baghanki, Tehsil Manesar, District Gurgaon vide mutation no. 6658 (Copy of mutation is attached). Now the plaintiff wants to implead the contested defendants of the disputed land property namely:-

i Amit Kumar S/o Ram Chander R/o Shanti Nagar, Gurgaon.

ii. Man Mohan S/o Mahipal, R/o H. No.

845/22, Gali No. 6, Gandhi Nagar, Gurgaon.

iii. Rambir S/o Ra