IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (120 Date of Decision:-09.12.2025 KEWAL SINGH AND ANOTHER … Petitioners Versus SHER SINGH AND OTHERS ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India through the present revision petition, assailing the order dated 20.10.2025 (Annexure P-6). By the impugned order, the learned trial Court allowed the impleadment of a subsequent purchaser as a party to the suit, a course of action which the petitioners contend to be legally untenable and contrary to the settled principles governing the addition of parties.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the respondents instituted a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the petitioners–defendants from alienating or otherwise encumbering a specifically valuable portion of the suit property, as well as from delivering possession thereof to any third party. The respondents asserted that the suit land constitutes joint property of the parties, and therefore any act of unilateral alienation by the petitioners would be impermissible and prejudicial to their co-ownership rights.

3. The petitioner contested the suit by filing a comprehensive written statement, asserting that the action was not maintainable and further contending that he was in exclusive possession of half share of the property. He pleaded that, pursuant to an exchange deed dated 07.04.2017, there had been a rearrangement of the holdings, whereby he had come into exclusive possession of the suit land in his capacity as a co-owner. Consequent upon the completion of pleadings, issues were duly framed and both sides were afforded adequate opportunities to adduce evidence. After the petitioner– defendant had concluded his evidence and the matter stood posted for rebuttal evidence and final arguments, the plaintiff moved an application seeking to implead his sons, Sanjeev Kumar and Suresh Kumar, as plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, asserting that he had executed a transfer deed dated 16.08.2023 in their favour, thereby necessitating their addition as parties to the proceedings.

4. Although the petitioner vehemently opposed the said application, the learned trial court nonetheless proceeded to allow it. The impugned order is now under challenge on the ground that, even assuming the subsequent purchasers have acquired a co-sharership in the suit property, their rights remain independent and distinct, and they cannot, in law, be substituted or impleaded as plaintiffs in the existing suit. At best, they could have been brought on record, if at all necessary, only in the capacity of defendants. It is contended that the learned trial court adopted an erroneous and legally unsustainable approach, rendering the impugned order perverse and liable to be set aside.

5. I have carefully heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have conducted a meticulous and thorough examination of the entire record, aided ably by the valuable assistance rendered by the learned counsel.

6. In the present case, the plaintiff filed an application seeking the impleadment of his sons, Sanjeev Kumar and Suresh Kumar, as co-plaintiffs alongside him, on the ground that he had transferred his share in the joint family property to them by way of a transfer/settlement deed dated

16.08.2025. The learned trial court allowed the said application.

6.1. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is legally untenable, inasmuch as the suit is one for permanent injunction and the cause of action is personal to the plaintiff. The contention further emphasized that a subsequent purchaser cannot, as a matter of right, seek impleadment in an ongoing suit. In support of this propos