252 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6970-2019 (O&M)

Date of decision: 15.12.2025 Suresh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Madan Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Chetan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 01.10.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby an application (Annexure P-2) filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading respondent Nos.1 and

2 as party to the civil suit (Annexure P-4) has been allowed. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is dominus litis and he had not impleaded Madan Lal and Raju Mehta-respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the suit as he is claiming no relief against the said respondents. It is further submitted that the said respondents are neither necessary nor proper parties yet the trial Court in a suit for injunction filed by the petitioner against the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited has impleaded the said respondent Nos.1 and 2 as defendants in the said suit. It is argued that the order vide which the application for impleadment has been allowed is illegal and deserves to be set aside and the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment deserves to be dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS No.1 and 2:-

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2 has argued that the present petitioner had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 09.02.2018 and in the said suit, injunction was sought against respondent Nos.1 and 2 from dispossessing the plaintiff from the premises in question. It is argued that it was the specific stand of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the said proceedings that even respondent Nos.1 and 2 were doing joint business in the demised premises as tenants for the last 40 years and that the motor car sale and purchase and motorcar workshop was a partnership concern and both the present petitioner and respondent No.1- Madan Lal were partners in the same. It is further submitted that it was also the case of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the said suit that the petitioner had got the name in the electricity connection changed from Surinder Kumar Madan Lal to Suresh Kumar alone, which was an illegal act. It is submitted that immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed the present suit for injunction on 15.03.2019 in which one of the prayers made was for restraining the Corporation from changing the name in the electricity connection in question from the name of the plaintiff/petitioner to that of any other name. It is submitted that even a perusal of the plaint, more so paras 4 and 6, would show that specific allegations have been levelled against the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the same and thus, respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are also claiming themselves to be co-tenants in the premises of which the electricity connection is the subject matter of dispute and are also paying electricity charges along with the plaintiff, are necessary parties and have a right to be impleaded as parties. It is further submitted that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had filed written statement in the present suit and in the said written statement, specific objections were raised by defendant Nos.1 and 2 to the effect that the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 were necessary parties to the suit as they were also tenants in the suit premises and the electricity connection in question was not in the sole name of the plaintiff-petitioner. It is submitted that since the application was filed within a period of 1 month and 5 days of filing of the suit, thus, the s