IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

206 Civil Revision No.1871 of 2025 Date of decision: April 27^th, 2026 Chaman Lal .....Petitioner Versus Jogindro and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Abhay K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT PETITION:

1. This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.11.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phagwara, whereby the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC file by the petitioner has been dismissed and also order dated 03.12.2024, whereby the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioner has been stated to be rendered infructuous in view of order dated 19.11.2024.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance on 18.04.2019 against Jogindro and Paramjeet Kaur. It is submitted that it has come on record that vide judgment dated 13.02.2020, one Gurvinder Kumar who is son of Balvir @ Balvir Ram and brother of Paramjit Kaur has a decree with respect to the property in question in his favour and by virtue of the said judgment, the defendants in the present case are no longer the owners and it is the said Gurvinder Kumar who has become the owner of the suit property. It is submitted that the petitioner was not a party to the said judgment and in view of the said fact, it became necessary for the petitioner to seek impleadment of the said Gurvinder Kumar as defendant in the present suit and also to carry out the necessary amendment, which has been declined vide the impugned orders. It is also submitted that since it is the suit of the plaintiff/present petitioner for possession by way of specific performance, delay in the proceedings would primarily cause prejudice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that a perusal of the judgment dated 13.02.2020 would show that there was collusion between the defendants in the persent case who were defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 in the suit filed by Gurvinder Kumar, inasmuch as the said defendants did not lead any evidence and did not even examine any witness with respect to the cancellation of the Will which was alleged in favour of Gurvinder Kumar son of Balvir Ram, so as to purposely suffer a decree in favour of said Gurvinder Kumar for creating obstacles in the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that as per his instructions, no appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 13.02.2020, which further clearly shows that there is apparent collusion between the defendants and Gurvinder Kumar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that immediately after the written statement was filed on 16.08.2021, the petitioner moved two applications, one was an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment in order to make the necessary prayers to challenge the said judgment and decree on the ground of apparent collusion and the other application which was filed was for impleading the said Gurvinder Kumar who was the plaintiff in the judgment decree dated 13.02.2020 along with Gejo through her LRs who was defendant No.1 in the said suit of Gurvinder Kumar. It is submitted that the trial Court has vide order dated 19.11.2024 dismissed the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC on surmises and conjectures and has further stated that the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been rendered infructuous. It is submitted that both the orders are against law and deserve to be set aside and the revision petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed inasmuch as the said Gurvinder Kumar and LRs of Gejo are necessary parties for the purpose of proper and complete adjudication of the case and for the purpose of passing an