Paramjit Kaur v. and Others Sarabjeet Kaur and Others
Case Details
CR-5317-2025 2025 (O&M) -1- 262 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR CR-5317-2025 (O&M) Reserved on :- 08.08.2025 Reserved on : Pronounced on:-11.08.2025 Pronounced on: Paramjit Kaur ....Petitioner VERSUS and Others Sarabjeet Kaur and Others ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Iva n Singh Khosa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ivan Singh Khosa, Advocate for the petitioner. , Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU 1. n filed by petitioner/plaintiff No.1 – n filed by petitioner/plaintiff No.1 Present revision petition has been filed by petitioner/plaintiff No.1 Present Paramjit Kaur against the orders dated 23.07.2025 Paramjit Kaur and dated 07.2025 (Annexure P-9) and dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala (Annexure P-11) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in appeal titled as as “Sarabjeet Kaur and Another Vs. Paramjit Kaur Vs. Paramjit Kaur and Others”. 2. Brief facts, in order to understand the controversy Brief facts are that the in order to understand the controversy, are that the
Legal Reasoning
. The dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants are real sisters and brothers. The dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants are real sisters and brother plaintiffs and defendants are real sisters and brother parties pertains to inheritance of their father namely, H parties pertains ingh. The itance of their father namely, Hardaman Singh. The who are the sisters of the defendants, claim 1/4th share in the suit share in the suit who are the sisters of the defendants plaintiffs, who are the sisters of the defendants property having allegedly inherited it from their father. The property having allegedly however, it from their father. The defendants, however that they had claim to be the exclusive owners of the property in dispute asserting that they had claim to be the exclusive owners of the property in dispute claim to be the exclusive owners of the property in dispute purchased it from their father vide various sale deeds purchased it from their father . It is pertinent to mention vide various sale deeds. It is pertinent to mention here that Plaintiff laintiff No.2-Kulwinder Kaur was allegedly murdered by defendant Kulwinder Kaur was allegedly murdered by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 along with their co-accused during the pendency of the suit and Nos. 3 and 4 along with their co were during the pendency of the suit and were TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5317-2025 2025 (O&M) -2- respondent No. 5 has been sent to jail. Therefore, plaintiff No.2/proforma-respondent No. 5 has been sent to jail. Therefore, plaintiff No.2/proforma sent to jail. Therefore, plaintiff No.2/proforma represented through her legal heir Hargun Kaur. represented through her legal heir Hargun Kaur. represented through her legal heir Hargun Kaur. 3. During the pendency of the suit, During the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs filed an application the plaintiffs filed an application of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from referred to as, ‘CPC’) seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from referred to as, ‘CPC’) alienating the suit property on the basis of alleged sale deeds and further from alienating the suit property on the basis of alleged sale deeds and further from alienating the suit property on the basis of alleged sale deeds and further from alienating the suit property on the basis of alleged sale deeds and further from thereon. changing the nature of the suit property or raising any construction thereon. changing the nature of the suit property or rai changing the nature of the suit property or rai Patiala vide order dated 23.10.2023 disposed Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala vide order dated 23.10.2023 disposed Patiala vide order dated 23.10.2023 disposed Learned Civil Ju of the application with the following observation of the application with the observation:- in case the defendants alienate the property during the pendency of “in case the defendants alienate the property during the pendency of in case the defendants alienate the property during the pendency of in case the defendants alienate the property during the pendency of regarding pendency of present suit shall be the suit, clear fact regarding pendency of present suit shall be regarding pendency of present suit shall be the suit, clear fact described in the same deed itself and intimation to the Court with described in the same deed itself and intimation to the Court with described in the same deed itself and intimation to the Court with described in the same deed itself and intimation to the Court with respect to purchaser along with complete particulars within 10 days respect to purchaser along with complete particulars within 10 days respect to purchaser along with complete particulars within 10 days respect to purchaser along with complete particulars within 10 days so that Court would keep a trace of owner of such act, shall be given, so that Court would keep a trace of owner so that Court would keep a trace of owner of such act, shall be given subject matter of the suit, to protect the suit from being as well as subject matter of the suit, to protect the suit from being subject matter of the suit, to protect the suit from being as we rendered infructuous.” rendered 4. plaintiffs filed an appeal before the learned Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs filed an appeal before the learned plaintiffs filed an appeal before the learned Feeling a Additional District Judge, Patiala, which was dismissed vide order dated Additional District Judge, Patiala, which was dismissed vide order dated Additional District Judge, Patiala, which was dismissed vide order dated Additional District Judge, Patiala, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2024. 5. who were Subsequently, during the pendency of the suit, defendants, who were Subsequently, during the pendency of the suit Subsequently, during the pendency of the suit in judicial custody, were produced before the Court of in judicial custody Judicial Magistrate, Ist ore the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patiala. They Patiala. They moved an application seeking directions to the uperintendent, moved an application seeking directions to the Superintendent Central Jail, Patiala, t Patiala, to take them to the office of S Registrar Patiala for to the office of Sub-Registrar Patiala for execution and registration of lease deed pertaining to suit land in favour of execution and registration of lease deed pertaining to suit land in favour of execution and registration of lease deed pertaining to suit land in favour of execution and registration of lease deed pertaining to suit land in favour of Sarabjeet Kaur w/o Jaspal Singh and Surinder Pal Kaur Sarabjeet Kaur w/o Jaspal Singh Late Jaswinder Singh Surinder Pal Kaur w/o Late Jaswinder Singh TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5317-2025 2025 (O&M) -3- [respondents No. 1 and 2 No. 1 and 2/ 3rd party in present revision Petition (hereinafter referred party in present revision Petition (hereinafter referred . The said application was allowed by to as “respondents No. 1 and 2 –herein”)]. The said application was allowed by . The said application was allowed by to as “respondents No. 1 and 2 the Court and the lease deed was executed accordingly. the Court and the lease deed was executed accordingly. the Court and the lease deed was executed accordingly. 6. On this development, plaintiffs filed another application On this development, plaintiffs under Order filed another application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC for granting ad 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with interim induction Section 151 CPC for granting ad-interim induction restraining the defendants from changing the nature of suit land and raising any restraining the defendants from changing the nature of suit land and raising any restraining the defendants from changing the nature of suit land and raising any restraining the defendants from changing the nature of suit land and raising any kind of construction. Learned Civil Judge, Junior kind of construction. Learned Civil Judge, Patiala vide order dated Junior Division, Patiala vide order dated
Decision
04.11.2024 disposed of the 1.2024 disposed of the said application by observing application by observing as under:- property in as per lease deed placed on record by defendant himself, property in “as per lease deed placed on record by defendant himself as per lease deed placed on record by defendant himself question has been shown to be an agricultural land question Therefore, shown to be an agricultural land. Therefore defendants are restrained from changing defendants are restrained from the nature of suit land till changing the nature of suit land till the pendency of suit.” the 7. t Kaur and Surinder Pal Kaur (respondent Feeling aggrieved, Sarabjeet Kaur and Surinder Pal Kaur (respondent t Kaur and Surinder Pal Kaur (respondent Feeling aggrieved, Sarabjee Nos. 1 and 2-herein ) filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, herein) filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, ) filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala along with an application under Order 1 Patiala along with Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 as defendants No.3 and 4 in the suit and allowing them CPC for impleading them as defendants No.3 and 4 in the suit and allowing them as defendants No.3 and 4 in the suit and allowing them CPC for implea Kaur and Surinder Pal Kaur to contest the suit by filing written statement. Sarbjeet Kaur and Surinder Pal Kaur to contest the suit by filing written statement. Sarbj to contest the suit by filing written statement. Sarbj (respondent Nos. 1 and 2-herein) also moved an application (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for leave to appeal in ) also moved an application for leave to appeal in stay application which was allowed by learned Additional Session Judge Patial stay application which was allowed by learned Additional Session Judge Patial stay application which was allowed by learned Additional Session Judge Patial stay application which was allowed by learned Additional Session Judge Patial vide impugned order 23.07.2025 holding as under: vide impugned order 23.07.2025 holding as under:- “3rd rd party Surinder Pal Kaur and Sarbjit Kaur had sufficiently party Surinder Pal Kaur and Sarbjit Kaur had sufficiently party Surinder Pal Kaur and Sarbjit Kaur had sufficiently arties. The lease deeds, demonstrated themselves to be aggrieved parties. The lease deeds, demonstrated themselves to be aggrieved p demonstrated themselves to be aggrieved p although executed during pendency are although acted during pendency are registered, and were acted their interest in subject property. Further at upon, thereby creating their interest in subject property. Further at their interest in subject property. Further at upon, thereby creat the time the registered lease deeds were executed the time the there was no stay egistered lease deeds were executed, there was no stay TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5317-2025 2025 (O&M) -4- to alienate or create third by any court on the rights of the parties to alienate or create third by any court on the rights of the by any court on the rights of the party interest in the suit. Thus, denial of leave to appeal would lead party interest in the suit. Thus, denial of leave to appeal would lead party interest in the suit. Thus, denial of leave to appeal would lead party interest in the suit. Thus, denial of leave to appeal would lead to grave injustice, especially when substantial investments have been to grave injustice, especially when substantial investments have been to grave injustice, especially when substantial investments have been to grave injustice, especially when substantial investments have been made in pursuance of public allotment. The made in regarding the of public allotment. The objections regarding the of attorney and alleged collusion are factual matters validity of power of attorney and alleged collusion are factual matters of attorney and alleged collusion are factual matters validity of to be considered at the stage of final hearing of the appeal and do not to be considered at the stage of final hearing of the appeal and do not to be considered at the stage of final hearing of the appeal and do not to be considered at the stage of final hearing of the appeal and do not defeat the right to seek leave.” defeat the right to seek leave. 8. Hence, the present revision petition Hence, filed by petitioner/plaintiff No.1 – present revision petition filed by petitioner/plaintiff No.1 Paramjit Kaur. 9. of the It is argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the It is argued by learned counsel It is argued by learned counsel petitioner/plaintiff No.1 /plaintiff No.1– Parmjit Kaur that the Additional Sessions Judge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala has wrong allowed the application for leave to appeal filed by the third wrongly allowed the application for leave to appeal filed by the third allowed the application for leave to appeal filed by the third party, which is is against law and facts. In fact respondents No.1 and 2 and respondents No.1 and 2-herein and respondents No.3 and 4/defendants No.1 and 2 are acting in collusion. The factum No.3 and 4/defendants No.1 and 2 are acting in collusion. The factum are acting in collusion. The factum of lease deeds was not disclosed in the written statements of lease deeds was respondents No. statements filed by respondents No. 3 and 4/defendants No. 1and 2. 3 and 4/defendants No. 1and 2. 10. Learned counsel for caveator-respondents No.1 and 2/ Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/aggrieved 3 aggrieved 3rd party, on the other hand on the other hand, has argued that learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, has argued that learned Additional District Judge, Patiala has rightly allowed the application for leave to appeal as it is settled proposition has rightly allowed the application for leave to appeal as it is settled has rightly allowed the application for leave to appeal as it is settled proposition of suit may still be permitted to file an law that a person who is not a party to the suit may still be permitted to file an suit may still be permitted to file an law that a person who is not a party to appeal, if he is directly and substantially affected by the judgment or decree. In appeal, if he is directly and substantially affected by the judgment or decree. In appeal, if he is directly and substantially affected by the judgment or decree. In the present case respondent case respondent Nos.1 and 2/aggrieved 3 aggrieved 3rd party being lessee are in party being lessee are in have direct interest in the suit property. possession of the suit property and they have direct interest in the suit property. possession of the suit property 11. learned counsel for the parties and have gone through I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through learned counsel for the parties and have gone through I have heard the h their able assistance. the record with their able assistance. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5317-2025 2025 (O&M) -5- 12. There is no dispute to the legal proposition of law that a person who is There is no dispute to the legal proposition of law that a person who is There is no dispute to the legal proposition of law that a person who is There is no dispute to the legal proposition of law that a person who is if he is directly and not a party to the suit may be permitted to file an appeal, if he is directly and not a party to the suit may be permitted to file an appeal not a party to the suit may be permitted to file an appeal substantially affected by the order, judgment or decree. The only que substantially affected by the order judgment or decree. The only question to stion to be is that whether the proposed appellant/third party is an aggrieved person seen is that whether the proposed appellant/third party is an aggrieved person is that whether the proposed appellant/third party is an aggrieved person is that whether the proposed appellant/third party is an aggrieved person by the judgment. In the present case it has whose legal rights are directly impacted by the judgment. In the present case it has by the judgment. In the present case it has whose legal rights are directly that they are the been specifically pleaded by respondent Nos. 1 and 2-herein that they are the been specifically pleaded by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 been specifically pleaded by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 grieved persons as order dated 04.11.2024 directly affects their valuable right. It aggrieved persons as order dated 04.11.2024 directly affects their valuable right. It grieved persons as order dated 04.11.2024 directly affects their valuable right. It grieved persons as order dated 04.11.2024 directly affects their valuable right. It roperty on lease from respondent Nos. 3 is not disputed that they have taken the property on lease from respondent Nos. 3 roperty on lease from respondent Nos. 3 is not disputed that they have taken the p and 4/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 during the pendency of the suit and 4/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 tay order dated during the pendency of the suit. Stay order dated 04.11.2024 restrains the change of nature of the property, which directly affects 04.11.2024 restrains the change of nature of the property 04.11.2024 restrains the change of nature of the property the who are lessee in the suit property. rights of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – herein who are lessee in the suit property. who are lessee in the suit property. rights of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Since, the rights of respondent Nos. 1 and 2-herein Since, the rights of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under the lease are impacted, herein under the lease are impacted, er cannot be adjudicated upon without hearing them especially when th er cannot be adjudicated upon without hearing them the matter cannot be adjudicated upon without hearing them hey have successfully successfully demonstrated before the Court of learned Additional District demonstrated before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala that the order substantially that the order substantially and directly and and directly affects their legal rights and interest in the suit property. The stay order restraining interest in the s the defendants from uit property. The stay order restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the suit property infact effectively binds respondent 1 and changing the nature of the suit property infact effectively binds respondent 1 and changing the nature of the suit property infact effectively binds respondent 1 and changing the nature of the suit property infact effectively binds respondent 1 and 2/3rd party as well as well, because their rights as lesse use and cause their rights as lessee including enjoyment, use and intended purpose of the land are affected. Thus intended purpose of the land are considering the fact that . Thus, considering the fact that confined to parties on record but extends to those aggrieved person’ is not only confined to parties on record but extends to those confined to parties on record but extends to those ‘aggrieved person whose rights are pre-judicially affected by the order whose rights are pre interest judicially affected by the order, they have a legitimate interest and right in challenging it. They have d right in challenging it. They have locus standi to seek leave to appeal as the locus standi to seek leave to appeal as the stay order directly impairs their rights flowing from a subsisting lease. Learned stay order directly impairs their rights flowing from a subsisting lease. Learned stay order directly impairs their rights flowing from a subsisting lease. Learned stay order directly impairs their rights flowing from a subsisting lease. Learned such leave on being satisfied that their lower Appellate Court has rightly granted such leave on being satisfied that their such leave on being satisfied that their lower Appellate Court has rightly TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5317-2025 2025 (O&M) -6- presence is necessary to is necessary to ensure complete and e their legal effective adjudication of their legal interest 13. In view of the finding above, there is no illegality in the order In view of the finding above dated there is no illegality in the order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P (Annexure P-11), wherein the main case filing wherein the main case has been adjourned for filing the reply to two applications. the reply to two applications. 14. both the impugned orders dated 23.07.2025 In view of the above, both the impugned orders dated 23.07.2025 both the impugned orders dated 23.07.2025 In view of the above, 11) are upheld and the present 9) and 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-11) are upheld and the present 9) and 28.07.2025 (Annexure P (Annexure P-9) and 28.07.2025 (Annexure P revision petition is dismissed accordingly. revision petition is dismissed accordingly. 15. if any, also stand disposed off. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. Pending application(s), 2025 August 11, 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document