Paramjit Singh vs Buland Iqbal Singh And Another

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 6761 P&H
Judgement Date : 1 April, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Paramjit Singh vs Buland Iqbal Singh And Another on 1 April, 2024

Author: Meenakshi I. Mehta

Bench: Meenakshi I. Mehta

                                     Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042893




123                                                            2024:PHHC:042893
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

                                                 CR No.1894 of 2024
                                                 Date of Decision: 01.04.2024
Paramjit Singh
                                                       ...Revisionist-Petitioner
                                     Versus

Buland Iqbal Singh and another
                                                                  ...Respondents


CORAM:       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present:-    Mr. Impinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate
             for the revisionist-petitioner.

                                   *****
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

By filing the instant revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-plaintiff (here-in-after to be referred as 'the plaintiff') has laid challenge to the order (Annexure P-6) handed down by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malout (for short 'the trial Court') on 15.12.2023 in Civil Suit No.187 of 2019 titled as 'Paramjit Singh Vs. Buland Iqbal Singh etc.', whereby the application (Annexure P-4) moved by him under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC with the prayer to implead Kuldeep Kaur, the General Attorney of respondent- defendant No.1 (here-in-after to be referred as 'defendant No.1') as defendant No.3 in the above-said Civil Suit, has been dismissed.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, as emanating from the perusal of the file and resulting in the filing of the present revision-petition, are that the plaintiff filed the afore-referred Civil Suit for seeking the relief 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2024 22:06:47 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042893 CR No.1894 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:042893 of permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants for restraining them (defendants) from interfering in his (plaintiff's) possession over the suit land and also from alienating the said land to anyone else except him. Defendant No.1 filed written-statement through his above-named General Attorney but the plaintiff moved the afore-said application with the prayer to implead her (General Attorney) as defendant No.3 in the Civil Suit and the trial Court has dismissed the same vide the impugned order, as already indicated in the opening para of this judgment.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff in the instant revision-petition, at the preliminary stage and have also perused the file carefully.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the above-said General Attorney of defendant No.1 is likely to alienate the suit land to some third person and if she does so, it may further lead to the multiplicity of litigation and for avoiding such an eventuality, she should have been impleaded as defendant No.3 in the afore-mentioned Civil Suit but vide the impugned order, the trial Court has dismissed application Annexure P-4, as moved by the plaintiff for this purpose and in these circumstances, it is quite explicit that the said order is not legally sustainable and hence, it deserves to be set-aside.

5. However, the above-raised contentions are devoid of any merit because the afore-named General Attorney of defendant No.1 is supposed to act on his behalf and all the acts done by her in respect of the suit land, in such capacity, would be deemed to have been so done by defendant No.1 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2024 22:06:47 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042893 CR No.1894 of 2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:042893 and he shall be legally bound and also responsible for the same. It being so, the above-said General Attorney-proposed defendant No.3 cannot be construed to be a necessary party to the afore-referred Civil Suit for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties therein.

6. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, infirmity or perversity so as to call for any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the revision-petition in hand, being sans any merit, stands dismissed.




01.04.2024                                       (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
neetu                                                  JUDGE

                   Whether speaking/reasoned:        Yes
                   Whether Reportable:               No




                                  3 of 3
               ::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2024 22:06:47 :::