Dismissed¶23

Balinder v. Ravinder and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Sept 2025CR/4434/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

impleadment of third party; necessary and proper party; Order I Rule 10 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Article 227 Constitution of India; dominus litis; possession under full payment agreement by father; permanent and mandatory injunction suit; last opportunity 29.11.2022; Civil Judge (Junior Division) Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Alka Sarin, J.; decision 11.09.2025; civil revision dismissed; no interference with trial court order.

What did the court decide?

As noticed by the Trial Court, not a single document was placed on the record to even remotely suggest that the petitioner was in possession of the suit property; his claim of possession therefore found no support. ¶18

Balinder Vs Ravinder and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

136

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR-4434-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 11.09.2025

¶4

BALINDER .... Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

RAVINDER AND ORS .... Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶8

Present : Mr. Aditya Narayan Arya Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

¶10

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby the application filed by the petitioner herein under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed.

¶11

Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffrespondents No.1 and 2 herein filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents No.3 to 6 herein from interfering in the actual, physical and peaceful possession and ownership of the plaintiff-respondents No.1 and 2. Further injunction was sought that they be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff-respondents No.1 and 2 from the suit property. Mandatory injunction was also sought directing the defendant-respondents No.3 to 6 to remove the door illegally installed by them in the Southern side of the suit property. After the evidence of the plaintiff-respondents No.1 and

¶12

AMAN JAIN 2025.09.12 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶13

CR-4434-2024 (O&M)

¶14

-2-

¶15

2 was led and the defendant-respondents No.3 to 6 despite having availed 5 opportunities failed to lead any evidence, last opportunity was granted to them on 29.11.2022. At that stage the present application was filed by the petitioner herein for being impleaded as a party. It was averred in the application that the defendant-respondents No.3 to 6 and the plaintiff-respondents No.1 and 2 are colluding with each other and are trying to oust the petitioner from the property which was purchased by his father by virtue of a full payment agreement. The Trial Court while dismissing the application had noticed that not a single document was placed on the record in support of the averments made in the application and held that there was nothing on the record to prima facie show that the applicant (the petitioner herein) was in possession of the suit property or had raised any construction over the suit property. Aggrieved by the same the present revision petition has been filed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property as his father had, by virtue of a full payment agreement, been put in possession of the suit property. It is further the contention that the petitioner is a necessary and proper party.

¶17

Heard.

¶18

In the present case, as noticed by the Trial Court, not a single document was placed on the record to even remotely suggest that the petitioner herein was in possession of the suit property. In the plaint there is no relief sought against the petitioner. It is trite that the plaintiff is dominus litis. Not having claimed any relief against the petitioner herein and the petitioner having failed to produce any document on the record to show that

¶19

AMAN JAIN 2025.09.12 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶20

CR-4434-2024 (O&M) -3-

¶21

he was an affected party in any manner, no fault can be found with the

¶22

impugned order.

¶23