Dismissed

Dalbir Singh v. Lakhvinder Singh @ Lakha Singh and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CR/4306/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The Court held that the petitioner could not insist on impleadment as a matter of right where he had an independent remedy and his claim was already subject to separate litigation.

What did the court decide?

The petition praying for interference with the impugned order of dismissal of the impleadment application was dismissed.

Dalbir Singh Vs Lakhvinder Singh @ Lakha Singh… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

139

¶4

CR-4306-2026 Date of decision: 10.09.2026

¶5

Dalbir Singh . . . . Petitioner Vs. Lakhvinder Singh @ Lakha Singh and another . . . . Respondents ** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA** **** Present: - Mr.Rajesh Bansal and Mr. Prince Dhaunchak, Advocates, for the petitioner. ****

¶6

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶7

The petitioner-Dalbir Singh has approached this Court assailing the order dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, whereby his application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC (Annexure P-4) for being impleaded as a co-plaintiff in the pending suit has been dismissed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the cousin brother of the plaintiff and that the parties belong to the same family. It is submitted that the suit property is shamlat land, which is being cultivated by the family members, and that the property has fallen to the share of the petitioner pursuant to a family settlement. According to the petitioner, he acquired knowledge of the pending suit only on 25.07.2025 and, therefore, sought his impleadment as a plaintiff. These submissions are noticed in the impugned order itself.

¶9

The application was opposed by the defendant, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner had already instituted a separate suit for partition against the defendant's son; his application for stay in that proceedings was dismissed and the appeal there-against also failed. It was consequently contended that the present application was an attempt to unnecessarily prolong the pending proceedings.

¶10

VIVEK PAHWA 2026.09.11 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶11

CR-4306-2026

¶12

2026:PHHC:128187

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference at this stage.

¶14

The power under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is undoubtedly wide and is intended to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon all the questions involved in the suit. However, such power is not to be exercised merely because a person asserts an independent or collateral interest in the subject matter. The Court has to examine whether the presence of such person is necessary or proper for effective adjudication of the controversy already before it. A person whose rights can be independently worked out in separate proceedings cannot, as a matter of right, insist upon being added as a plaintiff in an existing suit.

¶15

In the present case, the petitioner claims an interest in the suit property principally on the basis of an alleged family settlement. However, as noticed by the learned Trial Court, no copy of the alleged family settlement has been placed on record along with the impleadment application. Even no revenue document has been produced to prima facie establish the petitioner's possession over the suit property. The learned Trial Court specifically recorded these circumstances while declining the prayer for impleadment.

¶16

More importantly, the petitioner admittedly has an independent remedy and, as noticed in the impugned order, has already instituted proceedings for partition against the defendant's son. His claim to an independent share in the property, therefore, cannot be adjudicated merely by converting him into a plaintiff in a suit, which was instituted by another person for his own asserted rights. The addition of a person claiming an independent substantive right may materially enlarge the scope of the existing litigation and alter the nature of the controversy.

¶17

The further reasoning of the learned Trial Court that impleadment at this stage would result in commencement of the trial afresh, by itself, may not constitute a determinative ground for rejection of an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. Nevertheless, when considered cumulatively with the absence of prima facie material substantiating the petitioner's asserted interest

¶18

VIVEK PAHWA 2026.09.11 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Page 2 of 3

CR-4306-2026

2026:PHHC:128187

and the availability of an independent remedy already being pursued by him, the conclusion reached by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional error or material irregularity.

¶23

It is also significant that the rejection of the application does not adjudicate upon the petitioner's alleged title, share or other substantive rights in the property. The learned Trial Court has only declined to permit the petitioner to enter the pending suit as a plaintiff. If the petitioner has an independent enforceable right in the suit property, it remains open to him to pursue such right in appropriate proceedings, subject of course to all objections available to the opposite parties in law. The impugned order itself preserves such remedy.

¶24

At the preliminary stage, therefore, no case for interference under the supervisory/revisional jurisdiction of this Court is made out. The petitioner cannot, merely on the basis of his assertion of an alleged family settlement, claim impleadment as a matter of right, particularly when the material relied upon by him was not produced before the learned Trial Court and his substantive claim is already the subject matter of separate litigation.

¶25

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶26

(DEEPAK GUPTA) 10.09.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶27

VIVEK PAHWA 2026.09.11 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Dalbir Singh v. Lakhvinder Singh @ Lakha Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dalbir Singh v. Lakhvinder Singh @ Lakha Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases