Parties Having Any Right, Title Or Interest In Disputed Property Are Necessary Parties For Granting/ Refusing Injunction: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition against the order of the Trial Court allowing respondent No.1 to be impleaded as a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, held that parties having a right, title or interest in the disputed property are necessary parties. The Division Bench comprising Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta held that when the instant case is tested on the touchstone of these observations, the Trial Court's order qua impleading the applicant as the defendant in the Civil Suit has to be held perfectly legal. After considering the petitioner's contention that in the Civil Suit for seeking permanent injunction they, being the dominus litis, had every right to seek relief against anyone they deemed appropriate without being compelled to implead any third person as a defendant, the court held that this argument is devoid of any merit for the reason that the applicant claims possession over the property as its owner based on sale deed executed by defendant No.1 which makes him a necessary party. However, the above-raised contentions are devoid of any merit because the applicant claims his possession over the property detailed in Head Note 'B' of the plaint as its owner, on the basis of the above-said sale deed as stated to have been executed by defendant No.1 in his favour. It being so, it is quite explicit that the adjudication of the dispute/controversy between the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 & 2 qua the right, title or interest in this property, would directly affect the rights of the applicant, who claims to have stepped into the shoes of vendor- -defendant No.1, in respect of the same. In these circumstances, the applicant would be a necessary party to the said Civil Suit. The court relied on the judgment of Acqua Borewell Pvt.Ltd. v. Swayam Prabha & Others and held that the parties having any right, title or interest in the disputed property are the necessary parties even for granting/ refusing the injunction. Court further added that when tested on the touchstone of these observations, the impugned order passed by the trial Court qua impleading the applicant as the defendant is within the bounds of legal parameters. From the above-discussed observations, it becomes crystal clear that the parties having any right, title or interest in the disputed property are the necessary parties even for the purpose of granting/refusing the relief of injunction in a Suit and when tested on the touch-stone of these observations, the impugned order passed by the trial Court qua impleading the applicant as the defendant in the Civil Suit, has to be held to be perfectly legal. For the reasons discussed above, the court dismissed the petition finding it sans any merit, and upheld that order of the Trial court stating that the same does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, irregularity, or perversity. Case Title : Sukhmeet Kaur & Another v. Harjinder Singh & OthersCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 88Click Here To Read/Download Order

Parties Having Any Right, Title Or Interest In Disputed Property Are Necessary Parties For Granting/ Refusing Injunction: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Drishti Yadav

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Parties Having Any Right, Title Or Interest In Disputed Property Are Necessary Parties For Granting/ Refusing Injunction: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Drishti Yadav

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers