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
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
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
