Dismissed¶¶36

Kamlesh v. Rajwati and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Mar 2026CR/1147/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CR-1147-2026; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Virinder Aggarwal, J.; Kamlesh vs. Rajwati and others; Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction revision; Order I Rule 10 CPC impleadment of parties; proper party versus necessary party; specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.04.2024; co-heirs of deceased owner Jeet Singh impleaded as parties-defendant; Panchayat proceedings and affidavit of Naresh; Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hathin order dated 04.11.2025 upheld; reliance on Mumbai International Airport v. Regency Convention Centre (AIR 2010 SC 3109) and State of Assam v. Union of India (2010 (10) SCC 408); merits left open; costs Rs. 10,000/-.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the petitioner; the revision petition is dismissed and the impleadment order of 04.11.2025 stands. ¶¶36

Kamlesh Vs Rajwati and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to the petitioner; the revision petition is dismissed and the impleadment order of 04.11.2025 stands.

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents No.2 to 6, who claim rights in the suit property as heirs of Jeet Singh, are proper or necessary parties to the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell, and whether the learned Civil Judge rightly allowed their impleadment as parties-defendant under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

¶¶23

Court's answer

Even if the respondents-applicants are not strictly necessary parties, they are proper parties, as their presence is essential for a complete and final adjudication of the issues relating to ownership of the suit property and the competence of defendant No.1 to execute the agreement.

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

The learned Civil Judge rightly exercised jurisdiction in impleading respondents No.2 to 6 as proper parties, as they allege right, title and interest in the suit property which defendant No.1 has allegedly agreed to sell to the petitioner/plaintiff; no illegality, arbitrariness or impropriety is discernible in the impugned order.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

The observations in the order are confined solely to the adjudication of the issue of impleadment of parties and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute, nor prejudice the parties' rights in any other proceedings.obiter¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Virinder Aggarwal, J., oral) dismisses a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 04.11.2025 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hathin, whereby respondents No.2 to 6 were impleaded as parties-defendant under Order I Rule 10 CPC in the petitioner's suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 24.04.2024 executed by defendant No.1 covering the entire suit property. The Court holds that even if the applicants are not strictly necessary parties, they are proper parties, since they assert right, title and interest in the property and their presence is essential for a complete and final adjudication of ownership of the suit property and of defendant No.1's competence to execute the agreement, placing reliance on Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3109, and State of Assams vs. Union of India, 2010 (10) SCC 408. No illegality, arbitrariness or impropriety is found in the impugned order. Observations are expressly confined to the impleadment issue, with the merits of the underlying dispute left open. Costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on 26.02.2026 had been duly complied with.

¶1

CR-1147-2026

¶2

-:1:-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

( 127 ) CR-1147-2026 Date of Decision: 24.03.2026

KAMLESH

… Petitioner

Versus

RAJWATI AND OTHERS

... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

¶12

Present:Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J . (Oral)

¶15

The petitioner has instituted the present revision petition under the supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 04.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hathin, whereby the application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) by respondents No.2 to 6 for impleadment as partiesdefendant was allowed.

¶16

1.1. The costs quantified at 10,000/-, as imposed by this Court₹ vide order dated 26.02.2026, stands duly complied with. A photocopy of the receipt evidencing such deposit, tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is taken on record.

¶17

The petitioner filed a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 24.04.2024 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. As per the averments in the plaint, on 18.06.2024, a

¶18

GAURAV SOROT 2026.04.02 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CR-1147-2026

¶20

-:2:-

¶21

Panchayat was convened in the presence of Mukesh, Sunita Devi, Partap son of Ami Chand, Rambir son of Krishan, Mahander son of Krishan, and Rajwati wife of Jeet Singh, wherein 1/4th share of the plot in question was allotted to Naresh son of Jeet Singh, adjoining the house of Ravi Dutt. It was further recorded in the Panchayat proceedings that if Naresh instituted any suit against the plaintiff, he would be bound to withdraw the same, and Naresh executed an affidavit dated 18.06.2024 to that effect. Defendant No.1 subsequently refused to execute the sale-deed, prompting the petitioner to institute the present suit.

¶22

2.1. Respondents No.2 to 6 thereafter filed an application seeking impleadment as parties to the suit. The learned Civil Judge, after considering the matter, allowed the application, prompting the petitioner to file the instant revision petition impugning the order.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the applicants are neither owners nor in possession of the suit property and have no concern with the subject matter of the litigation. It was submitted that respondents No.2 to 6 are neither proper nor necessary parties, having concealed material facts from the Court, and that their application was filed in collusion with respondent No.1 with a view to defeat the petitioner’s rights, title, and interest in the property.

¶24

3.1. It was further contended that the applicants claimed that the suit property originally belonged to Jeet Singh, husband of defendant No.1, father-in-law of respondent No.2, grandfather of respondents No.3 to 5, and father of respondent No.6. They contended that after the death of Jeet Singh, the property devolved upon his heirs, including the defendant

¶25

GAURAV SOROT 2026.04.02 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CR-1147-2026

¶27

-:3:-

¶28

and the applicants, and that the agreement to sell executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the petitioner purportedly covered the entirety of the property, thereby affecting the rights of the other legal heirs. The petitioner challenged the correctness of the learned Civil Judge’s conclusion that the applicants are legal heirs whose shares in the estate would directly impact title to the suit property.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that any compromise alleged to have been reached during the Panchayat proceedings, or any purported authority of Mukesh Kumar to enter into an agreement on behalf of other heirs, were disputed questions of fact, which were to be adjudicated during the course of trial.

¶30

4.1. It is evident from the record that the petitioner-plaintiff claims specific performance of an agreement to sell covering the entire suit property, in which the respondents-applicants assert rights, title, or interest. Even if the respondents-applicants are not strictly necessary parties, they are proper parties, as their presence is essential for a complete and final adjudication of the issues relating to ownership of the suit property and the competence of defendant No.1 to execute the agreement. 4.2. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3109 , wherein it was held that “only the parties to the contract or any legal representative of the party to the contract or a transferee from a party to the contract are necessary parties,” and in S tate of Assam vs. Union of India, 2010 (10) SCC 408 , which held that a necessary party is one

¶31

GAURAV SOROT 2026.04.02 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CR-1147-2026

¶33

-:4:-

¶34

without whom no effective order can be passed, whereas a proper party is one whose presence is necessary to render a complete and final decision.

¶35

4.3. In the light of the foregoing, the learned Civil Judge rightly exercised jurisdiction in impleading respondents No.2 to 6 as proper parties as they are alleging right, title and interest in suit property which defendant No.1 has allegedly agreed to sell in favour of petitioner/plaintiff. No illegality, arbitrariness, or impropriety is discernible in the impugned order.

¶36

Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.

¶37

It is, however, clarified that the observations recorded here-inabove are confined solely to the adjudication of the issue of impleadment of parties and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute. Nothing contained in this order shall prejudice or influence the rights, claims, or contentions of the parties in any other proceedings, nor shall it be treated as a determination of any substantive question of fact or law in the main matter.

¶38

Consequent upon the disposal of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or in connection with the present proceedings, are deemed disposed of by necessary implication. No further orders are required in this regard.

¶39

24.03.2026 Gaurav Sorot

¶40

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE

¶41

Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No

¶42

GAURAV SOROT 2026.04.02 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kamlesh v. Rajwati and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh v. Rajwati and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh Prabh Singh Vs Rajbir Singh and Ors.

Billu Singh and Ors. Vs Nazar Singh and Ors.

Beer Singh Vs Ram Chand and Ors.

O&M Jagir Singh Vs Gurdip Singh

(O&M) Nishan Singh Vs Pritam Singh & Ors.

Rajinder Singh Vs Bal Kishan and Ors.