Dismissed¶11

Rajveer Singh v. Rajesh Benda and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Apr 2025CR/2009/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: impleadment of parties; Order 1 Rule 10 CPC; necessary party; Article 227 of the Constitution; supervisory jurisdiction; permanent injunction suit; registered Will No.49 dated 07.05.2018; Will challenged by counterclaim; daughters of propounder sought impleadment; protection of 100% disabled defendant; plaintiff's plea that he is master of his suit not accepted; Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; CR-2009-2025(O&M); decided 01.04.2025 by Nidhi Gupta, J.; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Respondents No.4 to 8 were necessary parties to the lis, as their rights would be directly affected by the result of the suit, and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/plaintiff by their impleadment as defendants No.4 to 8. ¶10

Rajveer Singh Vs Rajesh Benda and Others — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 04.03.2025 of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hisar, allowing impleadment of respondents No.4 to 8 as defendants No.4 to 8 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, was liable to be set aside in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶4

Court's answer

¶10

Ratio / Principle

No ground was made out for interference under Article 227 with the order allowing impleadment; the petition was accordingly dismissed.

¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Nidhi Gupta, J.), by order dated 01.04.2025 in 137 CR-2009-2025(O&M), dismissed an Article 227 petition by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 04.03.2025 of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hisar, whereby the application of respondents No.4 to 8 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed and they were impleaded as defendants No.4 to 8 in the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction (prohibitory and mandatory) in respect of the ground floor of house No.64, Defence Colony, Hisar, founded on registered Will No.49 dated 07.05.2018 executed by the parties' father Sher Singh @ Shera. The Court noted that defendant No.3 had already contested the suit through a written statement dated 13.09.2019 and a counterclaim seeking declaration that the Will was null and void, while respondents No.4 to 8 – also daughters of Sher Singh – pleaded right and interest in the suit property and the need to protect the interest of the 100% disabled defendant No.3. Held: respondents No.4 to 8 were necessary parties to the lis as their rights would be directly affected, and no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff by their impleadment; hence no ground to interfere. Petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of. (Paras 10-12)

¶1

Page 1 of 4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

137 CR-2009-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 01.04.2025

Rajveer Singh

...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Rajesh Benda & Others

¶8

...Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶10

Present:Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yada v , Advocate Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Adv o cate Ms. Deepika, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

*** NIDHI GUPTA, J.

¶12

Present petition under A r ticle 227 of the Constitution o f

¶13

India has b e en filed by the plaintiff seeki n g setting aside of order dated 04.03.2025 p assed by learned Civil Judge, J u nior Division, Hisar vide whic h application f iled by respondents No.4 to 8 u nder Order 1 Rule 10 CPC ha s been allow e d and respondents No.4 to 8 have been impleaded a s defendants N o.4 to 8.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff vehementl y submits that the petitioner had filed a suit f or permanent injunction. Relie f was soug h t by the petitioner o nly against the origina l defendants/ r espondents No.1 to 3 herein. I t is submitted that no relief wa s

¶15

SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

Page 2 of 4

¶17

sought by t h e petitioner against the respo n dents No.4 to 8. As such, the y could not ha v e been impleaded.

¶18

It is further submitted t h at the respondents No.4 to 8 had filed th e application under Order 1 Rul e 10 CPC at the instance and in collusion wi t h defendant No.3; as none of the defendants No.4 to 8 hav e any right in t he suit property and they no have right to dispute the validit y of Will in qu e stion; and as it is settled law t h at plaintiff is master of his suit . Moreover, W ill No.49 dated 07.05.2018 is a registered document and sam e has already b een challenged by defendant n o .3 by filing counter claim.

¶19

It is further submitted t h at respondents No.4 to 8 ha d sought impl e adment only on the ostensibl e ground the defendant No.3 i s not mentall y capable of facing the litigati o ns being 100% disabled. It i s submitted t h at however, the said fact is untrue as respondent No.3 had dul y filed a writt e n statement in the suit, as als o counter claim thereto. Furthe r in the application (Annexure P4), there is no mention made by th e respondents No.4 to 8 as to how and in whi c h manner interest of defendan t No.3 is bein g taken away by the plaintiff especially when defendant No. 3 has filed written statement and is contesti n g the suit. It is submitted tha t therefore, t h e application has been filed b y respondents No.4 to 8 only t o achieve so m e ulterior motive and to dela y the suit of the plaintiff. It i s accordingly p rayed that the impugned order be set aside. 5. No other argument is ma d e on behalf of the petitioner.

¶20

SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

Page 3 of 4

¶22

I have heard learned c ounsel for the petitioneran d

¶23

perused the case file in great detail.

¶24

Perusal of record of the c ase shows that the plaintiff ha d filed a Civil Suit (Annexure P1) dated ‘Nil’ for permanent injunctio n (prohibitory and mandatory) restraining t he defendants from entering , interfering i n to peaceful possession of the p laintiff and also from harassing , humiliating a nd threatening the plaintiff a nd forcibly dispossessing hi m from the ground floor of the house No.64, s i tuated at Defence Colony, Hisa r of which th e plaintiff is owner in possessio n in equal share with defendan t No.1 on th e basis of registered Will be a ring No.49 dated 07.05.201 8 executed an d registered by their father na m ely Sher Singh @ Shera in hi s favour, under the provisions of Specific Reli e f Act, on the basis of evidenc e of every kin d .

¶25

It may be pointed out t h at the plaintiff and defendant s No.1 and 3 are real brothers and defendant No.2 is near relative of th e parties and i s residing on the first floor of t h e house in question. In the said Civil Suit, t h e defendant No.3 had filed the written statement date d 13.09.2019 a long with counterclaim (Annexure P3). Respondents No.4 to 8 had filed ap p lication under Order 1 Rule 10 d ated 30.07.2019 (Annexure P4 ) seeking imp l eadment in the suit of the pe t itioner to which the petitione r had filed reply dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P 5).

¶26

SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

Page 4 of 4

¶28

A perusal of the applica t ion dated 30.7.2019 (Annexur e P4), shows t hat the respondents No.4 to 8 are also daughters of She r Singh/father of the petitioner. It was pleaded that as such they wer e necessary p a rties as they also had right an d interest in the suit property. I t is further s t ated in the application, that the Will relied upon by th e petitioner w a s based on fraud caused by co e rcion, undue influence and wa s made unde r deep-rooted conspiracy. The said respondents also sough t impleadmen t on the ground that interest a nd benefit of defendant No. 3 was require d to be protected as he was in c apable of independently facin g the present litigation being 100% disabled.

¶29

Furthermore, defendant No.3 had filed a counterclai m wherein he has sought a declaration (An n exure P3) that the Will date d 07.05.2018 e xecuted by Sher Singh in favour of the petitioner was null an d void. Keepin g in view the above facts, it is clear that respondents No.4 to 8 were also n e cessary parties to the lis as th e ir rights would also be directl y affected while no prejudice would be ca u sed to the petitioner by th e impleadmen t of the said respondents. 11. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfer e in the impugned order. Present petition acc o rdingly stands dismissed.

¶30

Pending application(s) if a ny also stand(s) disposed of.

¶31

01.04.2025 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶32

SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rajveer Singh v. Rajesh Benda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajveer Singh v. Rajesh Benda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

British Academy and Another Vs M/S Devkusha Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs Shakuntala Rathee

Gurmail Kaur & Ors. Vs Pargat Singh & Ors.

Karamjeet Singh Vs Vimal Kumar Setia Registrar Cooperative Societies Punjab and Others

Mala Rani Vs Pankaj Kumari and Others

Sunita Rani Vs Dr. Nanak Singh, IPS and Others