Local Managing Committee A.S. High School… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Local Managing Committee A.S. High School… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition disposed of while upholding the order dated 14.01.2025, with clarification that the observations therein are confined to disposal of the Order 1 Rule 10 CPC application, and liberty affirmed to the petitioner to institute independent proceedings, which shall be considered independently dehors the said observations.

Issue for consideration

Whether the observations made in the impugned order (with respect to respondent No.1 being the landlord) would come in the way of the petitioner instituting independent proceedings in pursuit of its plea of being owner in possession, and whether a clarification to that effect should be issued.

Court's answer

Observations made while deciding an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC are only for the purpose of considering whether the party is a necessary or proper party, and cannot be treated as a final adjudication of the right or status of the person who wants to be impleaded, more so when he has been given the right to file a separate suit/proceeding regarding his claim of ownership and landlordship.

Ratio / Principle

The revision petition is disposed of while upholding the order dated 14.01.2025, with the clarification/observation that the observations made in the impugned order are only for the purpose of disposal of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

Key takeaways

It would be open to the petitioner to institute independent proceeding(s)/suit in accordance with law, and any such suit/proceeding would be considered by the concerned Court independently, in accordance with law, dehors the observations made in the impugned order.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 14.01.2025 of the Rent Controller, Kaithal (in RP/16/2019) dismissing the petitioner's impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: Held, observations made while deciding such an application are confined to the question whether the applicant is a necessary or proper party and do not amount to a final adjudication of the applicant's right or status (including claims of ownership/landlordship), particularly where liberty to file a separate suit has been granted. Revision petition disposed of upholding the impugned order, with clarification that the petitioner remains free to institute independent proceedings, which shall be decided dehors the observations in the impugned order. (Vikas Bahl, J., oral)

CR-1654-2025 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(127)

CR-1654-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: - 20.03.2025

Local Managing Committee A.S. High School, Pundri

....Petitioner

Versus

A.S. High School/A.S. Senior Secondary School, Pundri and another

....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.01.2025 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Rent Controller, Kaithal in RP/16/2019 titled as “A.S. High School Vs. D.A.V. Public School, Pundri”, whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC dated 21.03.2023 (Annnexure P-4) filed by the petitioner for impleading has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although as per the impugned order the petitioner has been granted liberty to file a separate suit, with respect to the plea raised by the petitioner that they are the owner and landlord of the property in question but certain

NARESH KUMAR 2025.03.21 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement

CR-1654-2025 (O&M) -2-

observations had been made with respect to respondent No.1 being the landlord. It is further submitted that the primary reason for filing the present revision petition is to seek a clarification that in case the petitioner is to institute any independent proceedings in accordance with law, then, the said observations in the impugned order should not come in the way of the petitioner in pursuing its independent plea of being the owner in possession. It is submitted that with the said clarification, the present revision petition be disposed of.

It is a matter of settled law that the observations made while deciding an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC are for the purpose of considering whether the party is a necessary or proper party and the same cannot be considered to be a final adjudication of right or status of the person who wants to be impleaded as a party, more so, when he has been given a right to file a separate suit/proceeding with respect to his/her claim of ownership and landlordship.

Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances and the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present revision petition is disposed of while upholding the order dated 14.01.2025 with the clarification/observation that the observations made in the impugned order are only for the purpose of disposal of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and it would be open to the petitioner to institute independent proceeding/suit in accordance with law and in case any such suit/proceeding is filed, then, the same would be

NARESH KUMAR 2025.03.21 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement

CR-1654-2025 (O&M)

-3-

considered by the concerned Court, independently, in accordance with

law, dehors of the observations made in the impugned order.

( VIKAS BAHL ) March 20, 2025 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No

NARESH KUMAR 2025.03.21 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement