IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION :- 12.11.2025 Rafiq Ahmad and another ...Petitioners Versus Sakil and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

***

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. Petitioners, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has preferred the present petition to assail the order dated 05.08.2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for impleading other co-sharers as necessary parties to the proceedings has been dismissed by the learned Court below.

2. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the respondent–plaintiff instituted a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, coupled with a prayer for permanent injunction, claiming himself to be the owner in possession of the suit property, fully detailed and described in paragraph No. 3 of the plaint. The plaintiff has alleged that petitioner No. 2, along with certain other defendants, has been pressurizing him to vacate the plot in question, and that defendants No. 5 and 6 have no concern whatsoever with the suit property, yet they have unlawfully attempted to dispossess him therefrom. It is further averred that defendants No. 2 to 4, in collusion with the petitioners/defendants, initiated drone mapping of the area and falsely depicted defendants No. 5 and 6 as owners of a portion of the land shown in green colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint. Despite the plaintiff’s objections raised before the competent authority, no remedial action was taken, and a certificate/deed of title bearing UID No. 59233W00M1020RL063B came to be issued in favour of defendants No. 5 and 6. The plaintiff further claims to have submitted representations before the CM Window as well as before the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, but to no avail. It is alleged that defendants No. 5 and 6 have now made forcible attempts to raise construction upon the suit property and to dispossess the plaintiff therefrom, which necessitated the filing of the present suit for declaration and injunctive reliefs.

3. The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing a written statement, wherein, by way of preliminary objections, it was pleaded that the suit property was originally owned by one Baru, who had four sons, and that the grandsons of Baru, including the petitioners, have now become co-owners in the said property. It was thus asserted that the suit property constitutes joint ancestral ownership, and accordingly, the petitioners moved an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead the other co-owners as necessary parties for an effective and complete adjudication of the dispute.

4. The said application, however, came to be dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide the impugned order, which is now under challenge. The petitioners contend that the impugned order suffers from illegality and material irregularity, as all the co-owners of the property are necessary and proper parties to the suit, and it is the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that all such necessary parties are impleaded, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to secure a comprehensive adjudication of the issues involved.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and have carefully perused the record of the case.

6. The learned Civil Judge has recorded reasons for declining the petitioner’s application in paragraph No. 6 of the impugned order, which reads as under :-

“6. In the present suit, an application under order 1 rule 10 CPC was moved for impleading above-said parties as defendants by defendants no.5 & 6 on the ground that all the above-said parties are legal heirs of Baru (deceased), having right in the suit property, who needs to be impleaded for the proper adjudication of the suit. However, plaintiff has denied the averments and s