High Court of Punjab And Ha D Haryana
Case Details
IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Page 1 of 4 4 (cid:1) 137 ngh Rajveer Singh Rajesh Benda nda & Others Vs. CR-2009-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 01.04.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Advoc Ms. Deepika, Advocate for the petitioner. dav, Advocate dvocate NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present petition under Art of Article 227 of the Constitution of India has bee
Facts
been filed by the plaintiff seeking ed king setting aside of order dated 04.03.2025 pa 5 passed by learned Civil Judge, Jun ich , Junior Division, Hisar vide which application file n filed by respondents No.4 to 8 un as under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been allowed wed and respondents No.4 to as to 8 have been impleaded as defendants No s No.4 to 8. 2. Learned counsel for the p tly he petitioner/plaintiff vehemently submits that t at the petitioner had filed a suit fo lief it for permanent injunction. Relief was ught sought by the petitioner only on against the nal original defendants/re s/respondents No.1 to 3 herein. It i as . It is submitted that no relief was SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) sought by the the petitioner against the respond Page 2 of 4 4 (cid:1) ey ondents No.4 to 8. As such, they could not have have been impleaded. 3. It is further submitted tha 8 that the respondents No.4 to 8 had filed the a the application under Order 1 Rule in ule 10 CPC at the instance and in collusion with with defendant No.3; as none of th ve of the defendants No.4 to 8 have any right in th in the suit property and they no hav ity have right to dispute the validity of Will in ques
Legal Reasoning
question; and as it is settled law tha it. that plaintiff is master of his suit. Moreover, Wil Will No.49 dated 07.05.2018 is a re me a registered document and same has already be y been challenged by defendant no. t no.3 by filing counter claim. 4. It is further submitted tha ad that respondents No.4 to 8 had sought implea pleadment only on the ostensible is ble ground the defendant No.3 is not mentally ally capable of facing the litigation is ations being 100% disabled. It is submitted tha that however, the said fact is untru uly ntrue as respondent No.3 had duly filed a written itten statement in the suit, as also c er lso counter claim thereto. Further in the applic plication (Annexure P4), there is he re is no mention made by the respondents N ts No.4 to 8 as to how and in which nt hich manner interest of defendant No.3 is being ing taken away by the plaintiff esp o.3 especially when defendant No.3 has filed writt ritten statement and is contesting at sting the suit. It is submitted that therefore, the the application has been filed by r to by respondents No.4 to 8 only to achieve some ome ulterior motive and to delay is lay the suit of the plaintiff. It is accordingly pr ly prayed that the impugned order b er be set aside. 5. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the petitioner. SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 6. I have heard learned co Page 3 of 4 4 (cid:1) nd counsel for the petitionerand perused the ca e case file in great detail. 7. Perusal of record of the ca ad e case shows that the plaintiff had filed a Civil ivil Suit (Annexure P1) dated ‘N ion ‘Nil’ for permanent injunction (prohibitory a ry and mandatory) restraining th ng, the defendants from entering, interfering into into peaceful possession of the pla ng, e plaintiff and also from harassing, humiliating an g and threatening the plaintiff an im ff and forcibly dispossessing him from the grou round floor of the house No.64, situ sar , situated at Defence Colony, Hisar of which the p he plaintiff is owner in possession nt ion in equal share with defendant No.1 on the he basis of registered Will bear 18 bearing No.49 dated 07.05.2018 executed and and registered by their father nam his namely Sher Singh @ Shera in his favour, under der the provisions of Specific Relief ce elief Act, on the basis of evidence ind. of every kind. 8. It may be pointed out tha nts that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 3 a 3 are real brothers and defendan he dant No.2 is near relative of the parties and is d is residing on the first floor of the aid the house in question. In the said Civil Suit, the the defendant No.3 had filed t ed ed the written statement dated 13.09.2019 alo 9 along with counterclaim (Annexur 8 exure P3). Respondents No.4 to 8 had filed appli pplication under Order 1 Rule 10 da 4) 0 dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure P4) seeking imple pleadment in the suit of the petit er petitioner to which the petitioner had filed reply eply dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P5 re P5). SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 9. A perusal of the applicatio Page 4 of 4 4 (cid:1) re cation dated 30.7.2019 (Annexure P4), shows th s that the respondents No.4 to 8 er to 8 are also daughters of Sher Singh/father o er of the petitioner. It was plea re pleaded that as such they were necessary par parties as they also had right and i It d interest in the suit property. It is further sta tated in the application, that t he at the Will relied upon by the petitioner was was based on fraud caused by coer as coercion, undue influence and was made under er deep-rooted conspiracy. The s ght he said respondents also sought impleadment ent on the ground that interest an o.3 st and benefit of defendant No.3 was required red to be protected as he was inca ing incapable of independently facing the present lit t litigation being 100% disabled. 10. Furthermore, defendant N im nt No.3 had filed a counterclaim wherein he h e has sought a declaration (Anne ed nnexure P3) that the Will dated 07.05.2018 ex 8 executed by Sher Singh in favour nd our of the petitioner was null and void. Keeping ing in view the above facts, it is cle o 8 s clear that respondents No.4 to 8 were also nec necessary parties to the lis as thei tly their rights would also be directly affected while hile no prejudice would be caus he caused to the petitioner by the impleadment ent of the said respondents. 11.
Decision
In view of the above, no gr e o ground is made out to interfere in the impugn ugned order. Present petition accord ccordingly stands dismissed. 12. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. 01.04.2025 Sunena Whether speaki Whether report eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No portable: (Nidhi Gupta) Judge SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)