Dismissed¶¶29

Aadil Rashid Thind v. Amna and Others

Revisional jurisdiction – Impleadment of party

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Apr 2026CR/1798/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; CR-1798-2026 (O&M); decided 22.04.2026 by Virinder Aggarwal J. Keywords: Article 227 Constitution of India; supervisory/revisional jurisdiction; Order I Rule 10 CPC; impleadment of defendant; necessary and proper party; dominus litis; plaintiff's choice of defendants; independent cause of action; mandatory injunction suit; sewage pipeline laid in private land vs common passage; joint land in revenue record; dismissal of civil revision.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner, who seeks to espouse a defence identical to that of the existing defendants and against whom no relief is claimed, is neither a necessary nor a proper party; the lis can be effectively adjudicated inter se the existing parties. ¶¶28

Aadil Rashid Thind Vs Amna and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is a necessary or proper party to the suit so as to be entitled to impleadment as a defendant under Order I Rule 10 CPC. +1 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

No illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error is discernible in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

¶¶28

Key takeaways

The principle of dominus litis entitles the plaintiff to choose the parties against whom relief is sought; the petitioner has at best an independent cause of action, if any, which may be pursued in accordance with law.ratio¶¶28
The learned Trial Court rightly observed that even if the plaintiffs succeed in establishing that the pipeline lies within their private land, its removal would not deprive sewage facilities per se but would necessitate its lawful relocation in an appropriate public passage.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revisional jurisdiction — Impleadment of party — Order I Rule 10 CPC / Article 227, Constitution of India. Petitioner sought impleadment as a defendant in a suit for mandatory injunction filed by respondents No.1 and 2 against respondents No.3 and 4 for removal of a sewage pipeline allegedly laid within the plaintiffs' private land; the Trial Court dismissed his impleadment application and the High Court upheld that dismissal. Held: a person who espouses a defence identical to that of the existing defendants, against whom no relief is claimed, is neither a necessary nor a proper party, since the lis can be effectively adjudicated inter se the existing parties; the principle of dominus litis entitles the plaintiff to choose the parties against whom relief is sought, leaving the applicant with at best an independent cause of action to be pursued separately. The Trial Court had also rightly observed that removal of the pipeline, were the plaintiffs to succeed, would not deprive sewage facilities per se but merely require lawful relocation to an appropriate public passage. Finding no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error, the Court dismissed the revision under Article 227, clarifying that its observations were confined to this controversy and would not prejudice any party in other proceedings.

¶1

CR-1798-2026 (O&M)

¶2

-:1:-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

( 125 ) CR-1798-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.04.2026

AADIL RASHID THIND

… Petitioner

Versus

AMNA AND OTHERS

... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

¶12

Present:Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J . (Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to assail the order dated 12.01.2026 ( Annexure P-7 ), whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”), seeking impleadment as a defendant, has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court.

¶16

Facts in brief are that respondents No.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) instituted a suit for mandatory injunction, seeking a direction to

¶17

GAURAV SOROT 2026.04.23 13:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CR-1798-2026 (O&M)

¶19

-:2:-

¶20

respondents No.3 and 4 (defendants therein) to remove/uproot the sewage pipeline depicted in red colour from Point ‘X’ to ‘Y’ in the site plan (Mark ‘X’) appended with the plaint, on the ground that the same has been laid within the land owned and possessed by the plaintiffs.

¶21

The suit was contested by the defendants. During its pendency, the present petitioner moved an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment, asserting that although the land is recorded as joint in the revenue record, distinct residential plots have been carved out on the spot, with a common passage reserved for ingress and egress, wherein the sewage lines have been laid by the competent authorities. It was contended that in the event the relief sought by the plaintiffs is granted, the petitioner’s rights would be directly prejudiced, he being the owner of one such plot in Mustak Basti and having a substantial and direct interest in the subject matter, particularly with respect to essential civic amenities such as water and sanitation. The application was contested by the plaintiffs and came to be dismissed vide the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said order on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the factual matrix in its correct perspective and overlooked the direct and substantial impact that the adjudication of the suit would have upon the petitioner’s rights.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have carefully perused the record as well as the paper-book.

¶23

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Trial Court has declined the application upon recording a categorical finding that the controversy in the suit is confined to the allegation of the plaintiffs

¶24

GAURAV SOROT 2026.04.23 13:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CR-1798-2026 (O&M)

¶26

-:3:-

¶27

that the sewage pipeline has been laid within their private property, whereas the defendants have asserted that the same exists in a common passage. The petitioner, in essence, seeks to espouse a defence identical to that of the existing defendants, premised on his apprehension that the relief, if granted, may affect his use of the sewage facility. The learned Trial Court has rightly observed that in the event the plaintiffs succeed in establishing that the pipeline is laid within their private land, its removal would not result in deprivation of sewage facilities per se, but would necessitate its lawful relocation in an appropriate public passage.

¶28

5.1. In the given factual conspectus, the petitioner cannot be regarded as a necessary or proper party, inasmuch as no relief has been claimed against him and the lis can be effectively adjudicated inter se the existing parties. The principle of dominus litis entitles the plaintiff to choose the parties against whom relief is sought, and the petitioner, at best, has an independent cause of action, if any, which may be pursued in accordance with law.

¶29

5.2. Consequently, no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error is discernible in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed .

¶30

The observations recorded in this order are intended solely for the adjudication of the present issue and are limited to the scope of this specific controversy. They shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute. Nothing stated herein shall prejudice the rights, claims, or contentions of any party in any other

¶31

GAURAV SOROT 2026.04.23 13:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CR-1798-2026 (O&M)

¶33

-:4:-

¶34

proceeding, nor shall it be treated as a final determination of any substantive question of fact or law in the main matter.

¶35

Since the principal matter has been finally adjudicated, all pending miscellaneous applications are disposed of accordingly. No further orders are required in this regard.

¶36

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 22.04.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot

¶37

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

¶38

GAURAV SOROT 2026.04.23 13:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Aadil Rashid Thind v. Amna and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aadil Rashid Thind v. Amna 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

Satpal Vs Dilbagh and Ors.

Ram Murti Vs the Malout Hind Coop.

Sat Pal Vs Dilbagh Singh etc.

Karam Kaur Vs Balwinder Singh

Dulla Ram Alias Duli Ram Vs Kishan and Ors.

Surinder Singh Vs Harbans Singh