##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

CR-3981-2026

Date of decision: 12.05.2026

Manish Kumar Garg

. . . . Petitioner

Vs.

Beant Kaur and others

. . . . Respondents

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

****

Present: - Mr.Kashish Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present revision petition has been filed by defendant No.3-

petitioner assailing the order dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P-4) passed by the

learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, whereby the application moved

by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for deletion of his name from the

array of defendants has been dismissed.

2. Briefly noticed, the plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent

injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from the first

floor portion of the residential house in question and also seeking restraint

against alienation of the suit property. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that

defendant No.3, in connivance with defendants No.1 and 2, was interfering in

their peaceful possession and extending threats of dispossession.

3. During pendency of the suit, defendant No.3 filed an application

under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC contending that he had been wrongly impleaded as

a party as neither any relief had been claimed against him nor did he have any

concern with the suit property. It was further pleaded that he was neither

owner nor in possession of the suit property and, therefore, his name deserved

to be deleted from the array of parties.

4. The said application was contested by the plaintiffs by specifically

asserting that defendant No.3 was acting in connivance with defendants No.1

and 2 and was threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property. It

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.05.13 14:57

I agree to specified portions of

this document

Chandigarh

CR-3981-2026 2026:PHHC:074448

was also pleaded that relief of injunction had been sought against all the

defendants including defendant No.3 and, therefore, he was a necessary and

proper party to the lis.

5. Learned trial Court, after considering the rival submissions,

dismissed the application by observing that the plaintiffs had specifically

alleged interference and threats at the hands of defendant No.3 and that his

presence was necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the

controversy involved in the suit.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned

order suffers from patent illegality inasmuch as no substantive relief has been

claimed against defendant No.3 and the plaint does not disclose any cause of

action against him. It is contended that continuation of proceedings against the

petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record.

8. The scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction is extremely

limited. Unless the order impugned suffers from patent illegality, jurisdictional

error or material irregularity causing grave injustice, interference by this Court

is unwarranted.

9. In the present case, the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that

defendant No.3, in connivance with the other defendants, was interfering in

their peaceful possession and threatening dispossession. The suit itself is one

for permanent injunction. Therefore, at this preliminary stage, it cannot be said

that no cause of action whatsoever has been disclosed against the petitioner.

Whether such allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter to be

adjudicated during trial on the basis of evidence led by the parties.

10. It is well settled that while considering an application under Order

1 Rule 10 CPC, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial regarding the

correctness of allegations contained in the plaint. The test to determine

whether a party is necessary or proper is whether his presence is required for

complete and effective adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit.

11. The learned trial Court has rightly noticed that the plaintiffs are

dominus litis and ordina