Allowed

Davinder Singh v. Surinder Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Feb 2024CR/707/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff sought mandatory injunction over a village khal and applied under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the State of Haryana and Gram Panchayat. The High Court held the plaintiff is dominus litis, no prejudice was shown, set aside the dismissal and allowed the impleadment application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.12.2019 set aside; impleadment application allowed; State of Haryana through Deputy Commissioner and Gram Panchayat impleaded as parties.

Davinder Singh Vs Surinder Singh and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

2024:PHHC:026517

¶2

211

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR-707-2020 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.02.2024

¶5

Davinder Singh		... Petitioner(s)
	Versus
Surinder Singh & Ors.		... Respondent(s)

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶7

Present : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for the respondents.

¶9

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

¶10

The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 16.12.2019 (Annexure P-6) whereby the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the plaintiff-petitioner for impleading the State of Haryana through Deputy Commissioner as well as Gram Panchayat as a party has been dismissed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that the prayer in the suit was for mandatory injunction directing the defendantrespondents to remove immediately the blockage and embankment put and created illegally in the village khal which was being used to discharge the rain water. The learned counsel would further contend that the State of Haryana through Deputy Commissioner and the Gram Panchayat who is the

¶12

Yogesh Sharma 2024.02.27 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh

¶13

2024:PHHC:026517

¶14

CR-707-2020 (O&M) -2-

¶15

owner of the property i.e. khal would be necessary parties. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the plaintiff-petitioner is dominus litis and he is now wanting to implead the State of Haryana through Deputy Commissioner and the Gram Panchayat and that there could possibly be no objection.

¶16

Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the State of Haryana through Deputy Commissioner and the Gram Panchayat are unnecessary parties and there is no relief claimed against them.

¶17

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

In the present case the petitioner herein is the plaintiff and he

¶19

himself has moved an application for impleading the State of Haryana through Deputy Commissioner and the Gram Panchayat as a party. The stand taken by the defendant-respondents is that there is no khal and therefore there is no necessity to implead the State of Haryana through Deputy Commissioner as well as Gram Panchayat as a party. The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show as to how any prejudice would be caused to them in case the State of Haryana through Deputy Commissioner and Gram Panchayat are impleaded as parties. In any case the plaintiff is dominus litis and the application for impleading the State of Haryana through Deputy Commissioner as well as Gram Panchayat has been moved by him. In view thereof, the application ought to have been allowed by the Trial Court.

¶20

Yogesh Sharma 2024.02.27 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh

¶21

CR-707-2020 (O&M)

¶22

2024:PHHC:026517

¶23

-3-

¶24

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 16.12.2019 (Annexure P-6) is set aside. The application for impleadment is allowed. The State of Haryana through Deputy Commissioner and Gram Panchayat are impleaded as parties in the suit which shall proceed further accordingly.

¶25

Disposed off accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶26

26.02.2024 ( ALKA SARIN ) Yogesh Sharma JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶27

Yogesh Sharma 2024.02.27 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh

Davinder Singh v. Surinder Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Davinder Singh v. Surinder Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Om Parkash and Ors. Vs Ashok Kumar and Ors.

Harish Chander and Anr. Vs Gurcharan Singh and Ors.

Joginder Singh and Ors. Vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and Ors.

Maya Devi Vs Veeru Lal etc.

Municipal Corporation Gurugram Vs Joginder

Kailash Rani Vs Thakur Dwara Baba Dhari Ram and Another