Petitioner filed writ under Article 227 challenging dismissal of his application to implead him as defendant in a pending civil appeal. High Court dismissed petition observing it did not warrant supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
Present petition dismissed finding no occasion for interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2026:HHC:28436
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. : 341 of 2026 Decided on : 13.07.2026 Sunil Lakhanpal …Petitioner Versus 2026:HHC:28436 Tilak Raj & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : None. 2026:HHC:28436
Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)
PetitionerSunil Lakhanpal has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 30.07.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’), in CMP No. 4596 of 2019, filed in Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2018, titled as “Tilak Raj & Ors. Versus Roop Lal & Ors.”.
1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2026:HHC:28436
2
28.06.2018, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 140I of 2008, titled as “Roop Lal & Ors. Versus Shayam Lal & Ors.”.
4.1 In the appeal, titled as “Tilak Raj & Ors. Versus Roop Lal & Ors., petitioner Sunil Lakhanpal, has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., read with Section 151 of C.P.C., to implead him as defendant and to permit him to prove the Will, executed by Sh. Pohlo Ram on 28.04.2002, in his favour.
4.2 The application has been filed on the ground that the petitioner has not been arrayed as party in the above titled case and defendants have also not disclosed to
2026:HHC:28436
3
the Court that the petitioner is legatee in the Will dated 28.04.2002, allegedly been executed by Sh. Pohlo Ram.
4.3 Application has also been filed on the ground that the interest of the petitioner has not been properly watched by the parties to the lis and as such, serious prejudice has been caused to him. According to him, he is residing out of State and rarely comes to his home. The factum of pendency of the suit has not been disclosed to him by the parties to the lis and it has also not been disclosed to him that the parties are asserting their right on the basis of Will dated 05.03.1999 or 02.05.2000. The Will, upon which, the petitioner is relying, is stated to have been executed by Pohlo Ram, in the presence of marginal
witnesses.
4.4 Lastly, it has been prayed that the petitioner is the propounder of the last Will of Sh. Pohlo Ram. As such, he has prayed that the application, under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., may kindly be allowed, by impleading him as a party, in this case.
2026:HHC:28436
4
as alleged, has been executed by Sh. Pohlo Ram on 28.04.2002. Other contents have also been denied.
7.1 The said order has also been assailed on the ground that the plaintiffs have not impleaded him as party, whereas the contesting defendants have also failed to disclose to the Court that the petitioner is beneficiary, on the basis of Will dated 28.04.2002.
2026:HHC:28436
5
the present case. Hence, a prayer has been made to allow the petition.
case “ K. Valarmathi & Ors. Versus Kumaresan, 2025
INSC 606 ”. Relevant para 9 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:
“Essence of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, it cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise. Nor can it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. For example, existence of appellate remedy under Section 96 of the Code operates as a near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.”
“ Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr.
Verus B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors., 2026 INSC 434 ”, the
scope of interference has again been explained by Hon’ble
Supreme Court. Relevant paragraph 35 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:
“ 35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters is as follows:
a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an
2026:HHC:28436
6
unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals.
b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record.
c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.”
Court, would proceed to ascertain the fact whether the learned trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction, vested in it. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner, has been impleaded, in the Civil Suit, as defendant No. 13 and as per the judgment, father of the petitioner, Duni Chand, has not opted to contest the suit and has been proceeded exparte.
7 2026:HHC:28436
the plaintiffs have challenged the Will dated 05.03.1999, allegedly executed by Sh. Pohlo. The said relief has been given to the plaintiffs, by partly decreeing the suit, by declaring them as coowners in joint possession over 1/7th share, in the suit land. The said findings have been assailed by the defendants by filing the appeal, which is pending adjudication before the learned first appellate Court.
2026:HHC:28436
8
2026:HHC:28436
9
order, passed by first appellate Court. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed, however, it has been made clear that the Court has not decided the right and title of the petitioner, which he has asserted on the basis of Will dated 28.04.2002 and the findings, so recorded are confined to the disposal of present application. These findings would have no effect on the stand taken by the petitioner, in the application, under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.
disposed of.
(Virender Singh) 13th July, 2026 Judge
( Pramod Kumar )
2 issues framed by the court
Whether High Court should interfere under Article 227 on dismissal of application to implead petitioner in pending appeal?
Whether petitioner should be impleaded as necessary party to prove validity of alleged Will executed separately from disputed property suit
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. Valarmathi & Ors. Versus KumaresanReferred¶33
K. Valarmathi & Ors. Versus Kumaresan, 2025 INSC 606 · Who else cites this
Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. Verus B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors.Referred¶37
Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. Verus B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors., 2026 INSC 434 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sunil Lakhanpal
Tilak Raj & Ors.
Virender Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
