IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :30.10.2025 DEEPAK SANGWAN ... PETITIONER VERSUS VILLAGE PAINTAWAS KALAN BAJRIYA SARPANCH AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Prachi Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

P ARMOD GOYAL , J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri, whereby the petitioner’s application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking impleadment as defendant No. 4, has been dismissed.

2. Advocate - Deepak Sangwan, the petitioner, moved an application claiming to be the owner of Plot Nos. 399, 419, and 420, which are adjacent to the Panchayat street bearing Nos. 412, 418, and 421, respectively. He contended that his presence before the Court is essential for the proper adjudication of the matter, as the outcome of the suit directly affects his rights in the property owned by him.

3. Perusal of the copy of the plaint reveals that the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from taking illegal possession of the land in dispute. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is co-sharer in the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 415, 416, and 417, and that the defendants, without getting the land measured, are attempting to illegally occupy the same. The plaintiff has further alleged that the defendants are trying to encroach upon and take possession of a larger area than what is in their illegal possession.

4. The learned Court of first instance, while placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 SC 866, and Ramesh Hirachand v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524, concluded that no interest of the applicant–petitioner is affected by the claim set up by the plaintiff. It was held that the petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit, and accordingly, the application for impleadment as defendant No. 4 was dismissed.

5. On consideration, I find that no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the Court of first instance. It is admitted that the applicant–petitioner has no interest in Khasra Nos. 415, 416, or 417; he claims to be the owner of Khasra Nos. 399, 419, and 420, which are stated to be adjoining the Panchayat streets bearing Nos. 412, 418, and

421.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that, on the one hand, the land of the applicant–petitioner abuts the Panchayat streets, and, on the other hand, Khasra Nos. 415, 416, and 417 also abut the Panchayat streets. Therefore, it was contended, the present applicant is a necessary party as there is an alleged attempt to encroach upon the Panchayat land.

7. However, a perusal of the plaint annexed as Annexure P-2 clearly shows that the plaintiff is not claiming any portion of the Panchayat land or the land owned by the applicant–petitioner. The plaintiff is claiming only the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 415, 416, and

417.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant–petitioner has further argued that it is the plaintiff who has allegedly encroached upon the Panchayat land, and if the suit is allowed to continue, the plaintiff may get his possession legalized, thereby extending the Panchayat street towards the land of the applicant–petitioner.

9. However, neither from a reading of the plaint nor from the application it can be concluded that the plaintiff has encroached upon the Panchayat street. Moreover, even if the applicant–petitioner believes that the plaintiff has encroached upon or is attempting to encroach upon the Panchayat land, such a claim would constitute a separate cause of action that can be raised independently. The applicant–petitioner cannot claim impleadment in a suit filed by the plaintiff where the plaintiff does not seek to make the applicant a party. The plaintiff is the master of hi