IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.02.2026 DEEPAK MEHRA ....PETITIONER VERSUS PAYAL VIJ AND ANR. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (ORAL)

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure P-4) (wrongly mentioned as 05.01.2026 in headnote and prayer clause), vide which an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) moved by the revisionist and his vendor Arti for impleading them as defendants in Civil Suit No.2151 of 2021 titled as ‘Payal Vij Vs. Gunjan Vij’, pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, has been rejected.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist and have gone through the material on record.

3. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sulthan Said Ibrahim versus Prakasan & Ors. 2025(3) RCR (Civil) 176 has explained the scope of Order 1 Rule 10(2) as under:

"45. The power to strike out or add parties under Sub-rule (2) can be exercised by the court on an application made by the parties before it, or upon an application by a third party who desires to be added as a party, or even suo motu. Explaining the object underlying Order I Rule 10, this Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524 observed thus:

'6. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to the Court to meet every case of defect of parties and is not affected by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

4. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, thus empowers courts to add, substitute, or strike out parties to a suit at any stage to ensure necessary parties are present for complete adjudication. Under sub-rule (1), if a suit is filed by the wrong person as plaintiff or if there is uncertainty regarding the correct plaintiff, the Court may substitute or add the right person, provided the mistake was made in good faith and the change is essential to determining the real matter in dispute. At any stage of the legal process, under sub-rule (2), the Court has the power, either on its own or through an application, to remove the name of any party who was improperly included or to add any person who should have been joined or whose presence is necessary for a final adjudication of all issues. In simple words, it provides for the addition of necessary and proper parties as well as the removal of any unnecessary or improper party. A necessary party is one without whom no effective decree can be passed, while a proper party is one whose presence is required for complete adjudication.

5. Coming to the facts of the case, perusal of the plaint shows that the property in question was owned by one Som Nath and after his demise, the same was inherited by his wife Janak Vij, daughters Harsh and Monika and his sons Gunjan and Subhash to the extent of 1/5^th share each. One of the sons, namely, Subhash has since passed away and his share devolved upon his wife Arti, one son and daughter and applicant Deepak claims to have purchased the share of Arti. The suit in question has been instituted by Payal (respondent), who is the wife of one of the sons, namely, Gunjan to the effect that 1/5^th share owned