Monika Ghai Vs Manjeet Singh Arora and Anr.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No. 414 of 2022 Decided on : 18.05.2026

____________________________________________________ Smt. Monika Ghai ...Petitioner. Versus Manjeet Singh Arora (deceased) through LRs & another ...Respondents. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶4

For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate. __________________________________________________ Romesh Verma, Judge

¶5

The present petition arises out of the impugned order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Solan, whereby an application filed by the present petitioner for her impleadment in Civil Suit No. 85/1 of 2013, titled Manjeet Singh Arora vs. Sh. Uday Ram , has been dismissed.

¶6

Brief facts of the case are that Manjeet Singh, the present respondent, had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 04.05.2004 and permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, Sh. Uday Ram. In the suit, it was prayed that the suit for specific performance of the agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff be decreed by directing the

¶7

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

2

¶9

defendant to execute the sale deed of the flat consisting of two bedrooms, two toilets, one drawing-cum-dining room, one kitchen, and a terrace, having a covered area of 106.87 square meters (1150 square feet), situated on the first floor of the building in Block No. 1, facing the eastern side, in finished condition, constructed over Khasra Nos. 346/282/268/ 118/115/2/2, corresponding to Plot No. 2, situated in Mauza Khali, Pargana Bharoli Kalan, Tehsil and District Solan (H.P.).

¶10

It was further prayed that a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of possession of the flat be also passed in favour of the plaintiff.

¶11

The said suit was contested by the defendant, Uday Ram, and in para 6 of the written statement, he has specifically averred that he had already leased out the property for a period of 99 years in favour of Ms. Monika Ghai by virtue of a registered lease deed dated 17.11.2011, and that, pursuant to the said lease deed, even the mutation has been sanctioned in favour of Smt. Monika Ghai, who is a lessee for a period of 99 years.

¶12

It will be pertinent to mention here that Monika Ghai, the present petitioner, has already filed Civil Suit No. 78/1 of 14/12 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, District Solan, H.P., seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the

¶13

3

¶14

present respondents Sh. Manjeet Singh Arora and Sh. Gaurav Bhalla.

¶15

In the said suit, the present respondent, Manjeet Singh, has filed a written statement, which forms part of the record.

¶16

The present petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for her impleadment in Civil Suit No. 85/1 of 2013 on the ground that she is a necessary party, being a lessee of the suit property. Therefore, no effective order/decree can be passed in her absence. It has been averred in the application that, being a necessary and proper party, no effective judgment can be passed in the present proceedings without her presence. Therefore, being a necessary party, she is required to be arrayed as one of the defendants.

¶17

The said application was duly resisted by the present respondent, Manjeet Singh. The learned Trial Court, vide its order dated 30.05.2022, dismissed the application filed by the present petitioner.

¶18

After hearing the respective parties, and with their consent, without touching upon the merits of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, it will be in the interest of both the parties, in case, Civil Suit No. 81/01/2013 and Civil Suit No. 78/1 of 14/2012 be consolidated and heard by the same Court before whom the suit filed by the present petitioner is pending. Ordered accordingly.

¶19

4

¶20

It is made clear that, in case evidence has commenced in

¶21

any of the civil suits, the parties shall be at liberty to lead evidence afresh in both the cases, if they so desire.

¶22

The learned Civil Judge is directed to consolidate both the civil suits and direct the parties to lead common evidence in both the cases. The learned Senior Civil Judge is expected to adjudicate both the civil suits on their own merits, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court.

¶23

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Solan, H.P., to consolidate both the civil suits and to try the same on their own merits after clubbing them together.

¶24

All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(Romesh Verma) Judge

¶26

May 18, 2026 (Nisha)

Monika Ghai v. Manjeet Singh Arora and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monika Ghai v. Manjeet Singh Arora and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp Vs Paramjit Singh and Ors.

Kamlesh Kumar and Ors. Vs UOI and Others

NHAI Vs Sita Ram

Yashpal Vs Kundan Singh

M/S A.D. Hydro Power Ltd. Vs Rajesh Kumar and Anr.

Narayan Dass Vs Ajay Kumar and Ors.