Suresh Kumar vs Madan Lal And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 6317 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Suresh Kumar vs Madan Lal And Others on 15 December, 2025

Author: Vikas Bahl

Bench: Vikas Bahl

CR-6970-2019 (O&M)                          [1]



252
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                  CR-6970-2019 (O&M)
                                                  Date of decision: 15.12.2025

Suresh Kumar

                                                                      ...Petitioner

                                        Versus

Madan Lal and others

                                                                   ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:    Mr. Chetan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

            Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

            ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 01.10.2019 (Annexure

P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby an

application (Annexure P-2) filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 under the

provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading respondent Nos.1 and

2 as party to the civil suit (Annexure P-4) has been allowed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner is dominus litis and he had not impleaded Madan Lal and Raju

Mehta-respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the suit as he is claiming no relief against

1 of 9

CR-6970-2019 (O&M) [2]

the said respondents. It is further submitted that the said respondents are

neither necessary nor proper parties yet the trial Court in a suit for

injunction filed by the petitioner against the Punjab State Power

Corporation Limited has impleaded the said respondent Nos.1 and 2 as

defendants in the said suit. It is argued that the order vide which the

application for impleadment has been allowed is illegal and deserves to be

set aside and the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for

impleadment deserves to be dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS No.1 and 2:-

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting

respondent Nos.1 and 2 has argued that the present petitioner had earlier

filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present respondent Nos.1

and 2 on 09.02.2018 and in the said suit, injunction was sought against

respondent Nos.1 and 2 from dispossessing the plaintiff from the premises

in question. It is argued that it was the specific stand of respondent Nos.1

and 2 in the said proceedings that even respondent Nos.1 and 2 were doing

joint business in the demised premises as tenants for the last 40 years and

that the motor car sale and purchase and motorcar workshop was a

partnership concern and both the present petitioner and respondent No.1-

Madan Lal were partners in the same. It is further submitted that it was also

the case of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the said suit that the petitioner had got

the name in the electricity connection changed from Surinder Kumar Madan

Lal to Suresh Kumar alone, which was an illegal act. It is submitted that

immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed the present suit for injunction on

15.03.2019 in which one of the prayers made was for restraining the

2 of 9

CR-6970-2019 (O&M) [3]

Corporation from changing the name in the electricity connection in

question from the name of the plaintiff/petitioner to that of any other name.

It is submitted that even a perusal of the plaint, more so paras 4 and 6,

would show that specific allegations have been levelled against the present

respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the same and thus, respondent Nos.1 and 2, who

are also claiming themselves to be co-tenants in the premises of which the

electricity connection is the subject matter of dispute and are also paying

electricity charges along with the plaintiff, are necessary parties and have a

right to be impleaded as parties. It is further submitted that defendant Nos.1

and 2 had filed written statement in the present suit and in the said written

statement, specific objections were raised by defendant Nos.1 and 2 to the

effect that the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 were necessary parties to the

suit as they were also tenants in the suit premises and the electricity

connection in question was not in the sole name of the plaintiff-petitioner. It

is submitted that since the application was filed within a period of 1 month

and 5 days of filing of the suit, thus, the suit was at the initial stage and

impleadment of respondent Nos.1 and 2 would help in properly and fully

adjudicating the case.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order deserves to be

upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be

dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

5. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner had earlier filed a

suit for permanent injunction against respondent Nos.1 and 2 namely

3 of 9

CR-6970-2019 (O&M) [4]

Madan Lal and Raju Mehta. The said suit was instituted on 09.02.2018.

Prayer made in the said suit is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"Under the circumstances, it is, therefore, prayed that a DECREE for permanent injunction restraining the defendants themselves or through any of their attorneys, privies, assignees, representatives, etc. from interfering and intermeddling into peaceful possession of the plaintiff or forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from motor car workshop shed being run by plaintiff in Mission Compound, Court Road, Near Nanda Steel, Amritsar, belonging to Amritsar Diocesan Trust, Amritsar, as duly shown in site plan attached herewith as Mark-X; be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants. Any other relief to which the plaintiff is found entitled under the law, may also be granted in his favour.

            Dated:                                   Through Counsel
                                                          Sd/- Ramesh Chaudhary
                                                & Nitin Chaudhary, Advocates"

6. A perusal of the plaint (Annexure P-5) in the said suit would

show that it was the case of the present petitioner-plaintiff that respondent

Nos.1 and 2 herein, who were defendants in the said suit, had got some

documents prepared in their favour from the rival group of Amritsar

Diocesan Trust Office and had further averred that the electricity connection

was earlier in another name which was subsequently got changed by the

plaintiff. Although, written statement filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, who

were defendants, in the said suit has not been annexed along with the

present revision petition but a perusal of the order dated 06.07.2018

(Annexure P-6), which was an order passed in an application filed under

4 of 9

CR-6970-2019 (O&M) [5]

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the petitioner in the said suit, would show

that it was the case of the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the said suit

that plaintiff-present petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 were jointly

doing business in the demised premises as tenants of Amritsar Diocesan

Trust for the last 40 years and there was a partnership between them and

further that the present petitioner-plaintiff in order to create evidence in his

favour had got changed the name of the electricity connection in the

premises in question, in the Electricity Department from Surinder Kumar

Madan Lal to Suresh Kumar alone, although the electricity bills were paid

jointly by them.

7. On 15.03.2019, the plaintiff had filed the present suit while

impleading Punjab State Power Corporation Limited as defendant Nos.1

and 2 without impleading the present respondent Nos.1 and 2. Prayer in the

said suit is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"In the light of the facts stated above it is prayed that suit of the plaintiff may kindly be decreed with costs for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, its officials from disconnecting the electricity connection and from changing the name of plaintiff as subscriber/consumer of electricity connection account no.C16LR28/0624M to any other name. Any other relief to which the plaintiff is found entitled be also granted in favour of plaintiff with costs in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

Plaintiff Suresh Kumar Through counsel Ashwani Bansal Advocate Manish Bansal Advocate"

5 of 9

CR-6970-2019 (O&M) [6]

8. A perusal of the said prayer would show that apart from

seeking injunction restraining the defendants, who are Punjab State Power

Corporation Limited, from disconnecting the electricity connection, further

prayer has been made for restraining the defendants from changing the

name of the plaintiff as subscriber/consumer of electricity connection

account No.C16LR28/0624M to any other name. Normally, in a simplicitor

suit for injunction, impleadment of a third party is not to be entertained,

however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, more

so, when the above additional prayer has been made by the plaintiff-

petitioner, then, it cannot be said that respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the present

suit are neither necessary nor proper parties. In case, the petitioner-plaintiff

succeeds in getting the injunction on the second aspect i.e., restraining the

Department from changing the name of the plaintiff as consumer in the

electricity connection in question to any other name, then, the same can

cause serious prejudice to the rights of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, as it is

the case of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the tenancy is joint and the

electricity charges are also being paid by them, in the earlier suit for

injunction filed by the plaintiff.

9. Further a perusal of the plaint in the present suit, which has

been annexed as Annexure P-4, would show that in paras 4 and 6, specific

pleadings with respect to the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been

made, which are to the effect that officials of the Punjab State Power

Corporation Limited are hand in glove with Madan Lal and Raju Mehta,

who were having dispute with the petitioner-plaintiff and who are trying to

dispossess the petitioner-plaintiff and that several complaints were given by

6 of 9

CR-6970-2019 (O&M) [7]

Madan Lal and Raju Mehta on account of which the Department is also

acting against the petitioner-plaintiff. However, in spite of the said specific

averments, the plaintiff had chosen not to implead respondent Nos.1 and 2

in the present case. A perusal of the impugned order would show that even

defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e., Punjab State Power Corporation Limited had

taken a specific objection in the written statement that Madan Lal is a

necessary party to the present suit as he was also a tenant in the suit

property and the electricity connection in question is not in the sole name of

the plaintiff. It had further been observed by the trial Court in the impugned

order dated 01.10.2019 that certain documents filed on record by defendant

Nos.1 and 2 also showed that applicants-present respondent Nos.1 and 2 are

also tenants along with the petitioner-plaintiff. In the said circumstances, the

trial Court had allowed the application for impleadment.

10. It is not disputed before this Court that the stage at which the

application for impleadment was filed, was the stage prior to framing of the

issues, inasmuch as, the date of the plaint in the present suit is 15.03.2019

whereas the application for impleadment had been filed on 20.04.2019,

which had been allowed vide impugned order dated 01.10.2019. It is in the

present revision petition filed by the petitioner that an interim order was

passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 16.12.2019 directing the

trial Court to adjourn the proceedings, on account of which the suit filed by

the petitioner-plaintiff is still at the initial stage. In the said peculiar facts

and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that respondent

Nos.1 and 2 cannot be stated to be neither necessary nor proper parties for

final and proper adjudication of the case. In fact, it would be in the interest

7 of 9

CR-6970-2019 (O&M) [8]

of the petitioner also to permit the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 to be

impleaded as parties, so that the matter can be finally and properly

adjudicated and in case the petitioner is to win then an effective decree

could be passed.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Shalini Shyam

Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil", reported as (2010) 8

Supreme Court Cases 329, had observed that the High Courts cannot, at the

drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227

of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to

it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the

orders of court or tribunal subordinate to it. It was also observed in the said

judgment that a statutory amendment with respect to Section 115 of the

Civil Procedure Code does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High

Court's power under Article 227 but at the same time, it must be

remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly

expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227.

The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to

ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of

justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence

in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court.

It was also observed that the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but

its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline.

12. Keeping in view the above, this Court is of the opinion that the

impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court while

exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and

8 of 9

CR-6970-2019 (O&M) [9]

accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the present revision petition

being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.

13. It would be relevant to note that the observations made in the

present order should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the

main case and the trial Court would decide the main case independently, as

the present observations have been made only to consider the correctness of

the impugned order vide which the application filed by respondent Nos.1

and 2 for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC had been allowed and

the main suit would be decided independently by the trial Court after taking

into consideration the entire evidence and documents led by the parties.

14. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.

15.12.2025                                            (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan                                                    JUDGE


             Whether speaking/reasoned:-              Yes/No

             Whether reportable:-                     Yes/No




                                9 of 9