The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order that impleaded respondents as necessary parties to a suit involving property ID correction. The court held that admitted facts established their necessity for complete adjudication.
Revision petition dismissed; order allowing impleadment of respondents No.2 and No.3 upheld.
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.
Page 1 of 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
113 CR-1678-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.03.2023
Surender Kumar
...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Municipal Council, Mandi Dabwali & Others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:Mr. Paramjeet Singh Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. ***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff seeking setting aside of order dated 02.02.2023 whereby application filed by respondent No.2 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC has been allowed, and respondent No.3 has been impleaded suo motu, by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dabwali.
petitioner:
a) that the petitioner had filed a Suit seeking mandatory injunction directing defendant/respondent No.1/Municipal Corporation, Mandi Dabwali, to correct ID No.WD/16/499 of the suit property, in the name of petitioner as it pertains to property owned and possessed by the petitioner falling in land comprising khasra No.606/1/3/3/8/8/3/4/2/2/2; and for permanent injunction restraining said defendant from issuing NOC pertaining to aforesaid ID in favour of any person, and also from
SUNENA 2023.03.21 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 2 of 3
sanctioning any approval for raising construction thereby changing the existing nature of property bearing khasra No.606/1/3/3/8/8/3/4/2/2/2;
b) that petitioner was owner in possession of above said land and he had sold the same to one Resham Singh s/o Gurdev Singh vide registered sale deed. Upon death of said Resham Singh, said property was succeeded by his legal heirs. ID of the property was issued by respondent No.1 in accordance with law and NOC was issued by office of respondent No.1 before execution and registration of sale deed. Subsequently, the petitioner again purchased the suit property from legal heirs of Resham Singh by way of registered deed bearing No.7145 dated 28.01.2022;
c) that newly added respondents No.2 and 3 have no connection with the said property and learned trial Court is in error in allowing application filed by respondent No.2 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC. The petitioner being plaintiff is dominus litis of his Suit and therefore, impugned order deserves to be set aside.
SUNENA 2023.03.21 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 3 of 3
No.1 had changed ID of the property in question now showing the same to be in the name of Sohan Lal/respondent No.3 herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to refute this factual position.
above facts/admitted position, respondents No.2 and 3 are necessary parties to the said proceedings and need to be heard before mandatory injunction, as prayed for by the petitioner for directing respondent No.1 to correct ID No.WD/16/499 in the name of petitioner, can be granted. It is clear that respondents No.2 and 3 are necessary parties to the said Civil Suit as, in their absence Suit cannot be properly and completely adjudicated
upon.
Petition and the same is hereby, dismissed.
17.03.2023 Sunena
(Nidhi Gupta) Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
SUNENA 2023.03.21 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether respondents No.2 and No.3 are necessary parties to the underlying suit concerning correction of property ID to require their impleadment.
Whether a revision petition seeking to set aside an order allowing impleadment of necessary parties has merit.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SURENDER KUMAR
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MANDI DABWALI
SOHAN LAL
AUTHORIZED PERSON
NIDHI GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
