Paramjit Kaur Vs Sarabjeet Kaur and Others

Pr e sent revision petition has been filed by petitioner/plaintiff No.1 – Paramjit Kaur against the orders dated 23.0 7 .2025 (Annexure P-9) and d a ted 28.07.2025 (A n nexure P-11) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pat i ala in appeal titled a s “Sarabjeet Kaur and Another V s. Paramjit Kaur and Others”. 2. Br i ef facts, in order to underst a nd the controversy, are that the plaintiffs and d efendants are real sisters and b rothers. The dispute between the parties pertains to inheritance of their fathe r namely, Hardaman Singh. T he plaintiffs, who are the sisters of the defend a nts, claim 1/4^th share in the s uit property havin g allegedly inherited it from the i r father. The defendants, howe v er, claim to be the exclusive owners of the proper t y in dispute asserting that they h ad purchased it fr o m their father vide various sal e deeds. It is pertinent to men t ion here that Plain t iff No.2-Kulwinder Kaur was allegedly murdered by defen d ant Nos. 3 and 4 al o ng with their co-accused durin g the pendency of the suit and w ere

¶15

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CR-5317-2025 (O&M) - 2-

¶17

sent to jail. Therefore, plaintiff No.2/prof o rma-respondent No. 5 has been represented thr o ugh her legal heir Hargun Kaur . 3. D u ring the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an applica t ion under Order 3 9 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of C ivil Procedure, 1908 (herein a fter referred to as, ‘CPC’) seeking an injunctio n restraining the defendants f r om alienating the s uit property on the basis of alleged sale deeds and further f r om changing the n ature of the suit property or raising any construction ther e on. Learned Civil J u dge, Junior Division, Patiala vi d e order dated 23.10.2023 disp o sed of the applicati o n with the following observatio n :-

¶18

“ in case the defendants alienate t h e property during the pendenc y of th e suit, clear fact regarding p e ndency of present suit shall be de s cribed in the same deed itsel f and intimation to the Court w ith res p ect to purchaser along with c o mplete particulars within 10 d ays of s uch act, shall be given, so that Court would keep a trace of o w ner as well as subject matter of the s uit, to protect the suit from b e ing re n dered infructuous .” 4. Fe e ling aggrieved, plaintiffs fil e d an appeal before the lear n ed Additional Di s trict Judge, Patiala, which w as dismissed vide order d a ted

¶19

07.10.2024.

¶20

Su b sequently, during the pendenc y of the suit, defendants, who w ere in judicial cust o dy, were produced before th e Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patiala. T hey moved an application seeki n g directions to the Superintend e nt, Central Jail, P a tiala, to take them to the o f fice of Sub-Registrar Patiala for execution and registration of lease deed pe rt aining to suit land in favou r of TRIPTI SAINISarabjeet Kaur w /o Jaspal Singh and Surinder P al Kaur w/o Late Jaswinder Si n gh 2025.08.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CR-5317-2025 (O&M) - 3-

¶22

[respondents N o . 1 and 2/ 3^rd party in present r e vision Petition (hereinafter refe r red to as “respondents No. 1 and 2 –herein”)]. T h e said application was allowe d by the Court and t h e lease deed was executed acco r dingly.

¶23

O n this development, plaintiffs fil e d another application under O r der 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC for granting ad-interim induc t ion restraining the d efendants from changing the n ature of suit land and raising a ny kind of constru c tion. Learned Civil Judge, Juni o r Division, Patiala vide order d a ted 04.11.2024 dis p osed of the said application by o bserving as under:-

¶24

“ a s per lease deed placed on reco r d by defendant himself, propert y in qu e stion has been shown to be an agricultural land . Theref o re , de f endants are restrained from c h anging the nature of suit land till th e pendency of suit.” 7. Fe e ling aggrieved, Sarabjeet Kaur and Surinder Pal Kaur (respon d ent Nos. 1 and 2-h e rein) filed an appeal before th e learned Additional District Ju d ge, Patiala along w i th an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC for imple a ding them as defendants No.3 a nd 4 in the suit and allowing t h em to contest the s u it by filing written statement. S a rbjeet Kaur and Surinder Pal K aur (respondent No s . 1 and 2-herein) also moved a n application for leave to appe a l in stay applicatio n which was allowed by learn e d Additional Session Judge P a tial vide impugned o rder 23.07.2025 holding as un d er:-

¶25

“ 3^r^d party Surinder Pal Kaur a nd Sarbjit Kaur had sufficie n tly de m onstrated themselves to be a g grieved parties. The lease de e ds, alt h ough executed during penden c y are registered, and were a c ted up o n, thereby creating their inter e st in subject property. Furthe r at TRIPTI SAINI th e time the registered lease deed s were executed, there was no s tay 2025.08.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CR-5317-2025 (O&M)

¶27

- 4-

¶28

by any court on the rights of the parties to alienate or create t h ird pa r ty interest in the suit. Thus, d e nial of leave to appeal would l e ad to g rave injustice, especially whe n substantial investments have been made in pursuance of public allot m ent. The objections regarding the va l idity of power of attorney and a l leged collusion are factual mat t ers to b e considered at the stage of fin a l hearing of the appeal and do not de f eat the right to seek leave.” 8. He n ce, the present revision petitio n filed by petitioner/plaintiff No . 1 –

¶29

Paramjit Kaur.

¶30

It is argued by learned coun s el appearing on behalf of the petitioner/plain t iff No.1– Parmjit Kaur that the learned Additional Sessions Ju d ge, Patiala has wro n gly allowed the application for leave to appeal filed by the t h ird party, which is against law and facts. In fact r espondents No.1 and 2-herein a nd respondents No . 3 and 4/defendants No.1 and 2 a re acting in collusion. The fac t um of lease deeds w as not disclosed in the written s tatements filed by respondents N o. 3 and 4/defend a nts No. 1and 2.

¶31

Le a rned counsel for caveator-res p ondents No.1 and 2/aggrieved 3^rd party, on the ot h er hand, has argued that learne d Additional District Judge, Patiala, has rightly allo w ed the application for leave to a ppeal as it is settled propositio n of law that a pers o n who is not a party to the s u it may still be permitted to fil e an appeal, if he is d irectly and substantially affecte d by the judgment or decree. In the present case r e spondent Nos.1 and 2/aggrie v ed 3^rd party being lessee ar e in possession of t h e suit property and they have di r ect interest in the suit property. 11. I h a ve heard the learned counsel fo r the parties and have gone thro u gh

¶32

TRIPTI SAINIthe record with t heir able assistance. 2025.08.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CR-5317-2025 (O&M)

¶34

- 5-

¶35

Th e re is no dispute to the legal pro p osition of law that a person who is not a party to t he suit may be permitted to f i le an appeal, if he is directly a nd substantially af f ected by the order, judgment o r decree. The only question t o be seen is that w h ether the proposed appellant/t h ird party is an aggrieved pe r son whose legal rig h ts are directly impacted by the j udgment. In the present case it has been specifical l y pleaded by respondent Nos. 1 and 2-herein that they are the aggrieved persons as order dated 04.11.2024 di r ectly affects their valuable righ t . It is not disputed t hat they have taken the proper t y on lease from respondent No s . 3 and 4/defendan t Nos. 1 and 2 during the pend e ncy of the suit. Stay order d a ted 04.11.2024 rest r ains the change of nature of the property, which directly affects the rights of respo n dent Nos. 1 and 2 – herein w ho are lessee in the suit prop e rty. Since, the right s of respondent Nos. 1 and 2-h e rein under the lease are impac t ed, the matter cann o t be adjudicated upon without hearing them especially when t h ey have successfu l ly demonstrated before the C o urt of learned Additional Dis t rict Judge, Patiala t h at the order substantially and d irectly affects their legal rights a nd interest in the suit property. The stay order restraining the defendants f r om changing the n a ture of the suit property infact effectively binds respondent 1 a nd 2/3^rd party as w ell, because their rights as le s see including enjoyment, use a nd intended purp o se of the land are affected. Thus, considering the fact t hat ‘aggrieved pers o n’ is not only confined to par t ies on record but extends to t h ose whose rights ar e pre-judicially affected by the o rder, they have a legitimate inte r est and right in ch a llenging it. They have locus st a ndi to seek leave to appeal as the stay order dire c tly impairs their rights flowin g from a subsisting lease. Lear n ed lower Appellat e Court has rightly granted suc h leave on being satisfied that t h eir

¶36

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

CR-5317-2025 (O&M) - 6-

¶38

presence is nec e ssary to ensure complete and e ffective adjudication of their l e gal

¶39

interest

¶40

In v iew of the finding above, ther e is no illegality in the order d a ted 28.07.2025 (A n nexure P-11), wherein the mai n case has been adjourned for fi l ing the reply to two applications.

¶41

In view of the above, both the i m pugned orders dated 23.07.2 0 25 (Annexure P-9 ) and 28.07.2025 (Annexure P -11) are upheld and the pre s ent revision petitio n is dismissed accordingly.

¶42

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

¶43

August 11, 202 5 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶44

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Paramjit Kaur v. Sarabjeet Kaur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramjit Kaur v. Sarabjeet Kaur 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

Subhash Chander Garg Vs Pale Ram and Ors.

Malkit Kaur and Anr. Vs General Public

Gurinderbir Singh Vs Sukhpal Singh and Others

Omwati and Another Vs Kamla and Others

Sarika Arora Vs Capt. Harjit Singh Toor and Another

M/S Sialkot Steel Works Vs M/S Tata Steel Bsl Ltd.