IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3016 of 2024 (O&M) Inderjeet Singh @ Inderjit Singh . . . Pe,,oner vs. Smt. Kashmiri Yadav and others . . . . Respondents * * ** Reserved on: July 27, 2026 Pronounced on: July 30, 2026 Pronounced fully/opera,ve part : Fully * * * * CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued By:- Mr. Kunal Dawar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akash Vashisth, Mr. Saurav Bajaj, Mr. Prashant Vir Gupta and Mr. Akinchan Aggarwal, Advocates for the pe""oner. Mr. Virat Rana and Mr. Chetan Anand, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. Aayush Arora and Mr. Tarun Seth, Advocates for respondent Nos.3 and 4. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Pe""oner was ini"ally impleaded as defendant No.2 in Civil Suit No. CS-618 of 2019 "tled "Smt. Kashmiri Yadav v. Balbir Singh and others", pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari. Though he was subsequently given up by the plain"ff, his applica"on under Order I Rule 10 read with Sec"on 151 CPC seeking impleadment as a defendant has been dismissed by order dated 04.04.2024 (Annexure P-21), which is under challenge in the present revision pe""on. 2. A perusal of the record reveals that respondent No.1-plain"ff ins"tuted the suit against Balbir Singh (defendant No.1) seeking a decree of SARITA RANI 2026.07.30 12:01 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.3016 of 2024 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:104401 permanent injunc"on on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 01.10.2018, alleging that despite the subsistence of the said agreement, defendant No.1 intended to alienate the suit property in favour of a third party. A decree restraining the defendants from aliena"ng or changing the nature of the suit property was accordingly sought. 3. The present pe""oner, Inderjeet Singh, being the son of defendant No.1 and an a<es"ng witness to the agreement to sell, was impleaded as defendant No.2. He was proceeded against ex parte on 29.05.2019 (Annexure P-2). On 30.05.2019 (Annexure P-3), the trial Court granted an ad interim injunc"on restraining the defendants from aliena"ng the suit property. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the plain"ff moved an applica"on under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 30.09.2019 (Annexure P-4) seeking conversion of the suit for permanent injunc"on into one for specific performance of the agreement to sell. Before the said applica"on could be decided, defendant No.1 executed a transfer deed dated 09.10.2020 (Annexure P-6) in favour of his grandchildren, namely Himanshu and Sakshi, children of the present pe""oner, transferring agricultural land measuring 51 kanals 13.64 marlas, which included the suit property. 5. The record further shows that disputes had arisen within the family. Smt. Sushma Dhankhar, wife of the pe""oner and mother of Himanshu and Sakshi, ins"tuted proceedings under Sec"on 12 of the Protec"on of Women from Domes"c Violence Act, 2005 before the competent Court at Saket, New Delhi against the pe""oner as well as defendant No.1. Subsequently, Balbir Singh himself ins"tuted proceedings under Sec"on 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Ci"zens Act, 2007 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rewari, challenging the aforesaid transfer deed dated 09.10.2020 by alleging that his grandchildren had obtained his thumb impressions on blank papers on the pretext of taking him for medical treatment at Dharuhera and had fraudulently got the transfer deed executed. Page 2 of 10 SARITA RANI 2026.07.30 12:01 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.3016 of 2024 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:104401 6. ThereaBer, Balbir Singh executed a registered Will No.2771 dated 08.03.2021 in favour of his sons, namely the present pe""oner and Parmod Kumar. Defendant No.1 also filed a reply opposing the plain"ff's applica"on for amendment on the ground that conversion of the suit into one for specific performance would alter its nature. However, before the amendment applica"on could be decided, Balbir Singh expired on 16.10.2021. 7. Consequent upon his death, the plain"ff moved an applica"on dated 16.11.2021 (Annexure P-10) for bringing on record the legal representa"ves of deceased Balbir Singh, including the present pe""oner. The applica"on remained pending. 8. While the said applica"on was s"ll pending, significant developments took place on 06.07.2022. The plain"ff moved an applica"on seeking preponement of the case for recording a compromise. On the same day, Himanshu and Sakshi filed an applica"on under Order I Rule 10 CPC claiming impleadment on the strength of the transfer deed No.856 dated 09.10.2020. Since the plain"ff expressed no objec"on, they were impleaded as defendants - respondent Nos 3 & 4. Simultaneously, the plain"ff made a statement giving up the present pe""oner as defendant No.2 and also sought withdrawal of the applica"on for bringing on record the legal representa"ves of deceased defendant No.1. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 also conveyed their no objec"on to the plain"ff's pending applica"on for amendment of the plaint seeking conversion of the suit into one for specific performance. A compromise deed dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure P-14) was also placed on record. 9. On 25.07.2022, counsel appeared on behalf of the present pe""oner. ThereaBer, on 09.08.2022 (Annexure P-18), the trial Court dismissed the applica"on for subs"tu"on of the legal representa"ves of deceased Balbir Singh as not pressed, on the basis of the plain"ff's statement. Defendant No.2, namely the present pe""oner, also stood given up. Page 3 of 10 SARITA RANI 2026.07.30 12:01 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.3016 of 2024 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:104401 10. Subsequently, on 06.09.2022, the pe""oner filed an applica"on under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking his impleadment in the suit. He asserted that by virtue of the registered Will dated 08.03.2021 executed by deceased Balbir Singh, he had succeeded to the estate of the deceased and had thus stepped into his shoes. He further pleaded that the transfer deed dated 09.10.2020 in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 was itself fraudulent and under challenge, and therefore, he was a necessary and proper party to the proceedings. The applica"on having been contested, the trial Court dismissed the same by the impugned order dated 04.04.2024, primarily relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 691, holding that ques"ons rela"ng to "tle cannot be adjudicated in a suit for specific performance. 11. Assailing the impugned order, learned senior counsel appearing for the pe""oner submits that although a plain"ff, being dominus li$s, cannot ordinarily be compelled to proceed against a person whom he chooses to give up, nevertheless, once the suit stood converted into one for specific performance and the original vendor had expired, a decree for specific performance could not legally be passed without impleading the legal representa"ves of the deceased vendor. It is argued that the trial Court has misapplied the ra"o of Kasturi (supra), wherein the Supreme Court itself recognised that necessary par"es to a suit for specific performance include the par"es to the contract, or if any of them has died, his legal representa"ves, besides a subsequent transferee of the contracted property. Since the pe""oner claims as one of the legal representa"ves of deceased Balbir Singh under the registered Will dated 08.03.2021, he is a necessary party to the proceedings. According to the pe""oner, respondent Nos.3 and 4 may claim to be transferees under the transfer deed dated 09.10.2020, but they cannot subs"tute the legal representa"ves of the deceased vendor. In support of the submissions, reliance has been placed upon Chhotalal Hariram and another v. Dilip Kumar Cha"erjee and others, AIR 1976 Calcu"a 337; Nirav Deepak Modi v. Najoo Bhiwandiwala, 2014(71) RCR (Civil) 374; Smt. Manni Devi v. Ramayan Singh, 1984 SCC OnLine Pat 143; SARITA RANI 2026.07.30 12:01 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.3016 of 2024 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:104401 Bhuneshwar v. Gamman Das, AIR 2021 Chha6sgarh 86; and Pathipu"ur Gayathri v. Vandela Ramana Reddy, 2025 AIR CC 1412. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as well as respondent Nos.3 and 4 supports the impugned order by contending that a person asser"ng an independent "tle over the suit property is neither a necessary nor a proper party in a suit for specific performance unless he is a party to the agreement to sell. Reliance is placed upon Kuldeep Singh v. Ashish Kumar and others, CR-2380-2026, decided on 13.03.2026. It is further argued that the plain"ff, being dominus li$s, cannot be compelled to implead a party against his wishes. Reliance in this regard is placed upon NAK Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Tarun Keshrichand Shah and others, SLP (C) Nos.6024-6025 of 2022, decided on 05.01.2026. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the par"es at length and have gone through the paper-book with their able assistance. 14. The short ques"on, which arises for considera"on is whether the pe""oner, who admi<edly is one of the legal heirs of deceased Balbir Singh, the executant of the agreement to sell dated 01.10.2018, can be denied impleadment merely because the plain"ff chose to give him up aBer the death of the original defendant and instead proceeded only against respondent Nos.3 and 4, who claim rights under an earlier transfer deed. 15. Order I Rule 10(2) CPC confers wide discre"onary powers upon the Court to add any person as a party, whose presence before the Court is necessary or proper for effec"vely and completely adjudica"ng upon all the ques"ons involved in the suit. The provision is intended to ensure that the li"ga"on is concluded in the presence of all persons, whose par"cipa"on is essen"al for passing an effec"ve and executable decree and to avoid mul"plicity of proceedings. 16. It is undoubtedly true that the plain"ff is the dominus li$s and ordinarily cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. However, the said principle is not absolute. Once the Court finds that the absence of a person would render the adjudica"on incomplete SARITA RANI 2026.07.30 12:01 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.3016 of 2024 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:104401 or the decree ineffec"ve or in-executable, the Court is empowered, and indeed obliged, to exercise the jurisdic"on vested under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. This principle now stands authorita"vely explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mumbai Interna=onal Airport Private Limited v. Regency Conven=on Centre and Hotels Private Limited, (2010) 7 SCC 417, wherein it was held that although the plain"ff is dominus li$s, the Court possesses ample jurisdic"on to implead a necessary or proper party, if its presence is required for complete and effec"ve adjudica"on of the controversy. 17. The learned trial Court has dismissed the applica"on primarily relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 691. In the considered opinion of this Court, the ra"o of the said judgment has not been appreciated in its correct perspec"ve. 18. In Kasturi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a claim raised by strangers asser"ng an independent "tle adverse to both the vendor and the vendee under the agreement to sell. It was in that context held that such strangers cannot insist upon their impleadment, as the scope of a suit for specific performance cannot ordinarily be enlarged into a "tle dispute. Simultaneously, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically observed that the necessary par"es to a suit for specific performance are the par"es to the contract and, if any of them has died, their legal representa"ves, besides a subsequent purchaser of the contracted property. Thus, the judgment itself recognizes that aBer the death of a contrac"ng party, his estate has necessarily to be represented before the Court. 19. The present case stands on an en"rely different foo"ng. The pe""oner is admi<edly the son of deceased Balbir Singh, who was the sole executant of the agreement to sell sought to be specifically enforced. Ini"ally, the plain"ff himself filed an applica"on under Order XXII CPC for bringing on record all the legal representa"ves of the deceased, including the pe""oner. However, aBer respondent Nos.3 and 4 sought impleadment on the basis of the transfer deed dated 09.10.2020 and expressed no objec"on to the amendment of the plaint and the compromise proposed by the plain"ff, the SARITA RANI 2026.07.30 12:01 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.3016 of 2024 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:104401 applica"on for subs"tu"on of legal representa"ves was withdrawn and the pe""oner was given up. 20. Such withdrawal of the applica"on by itself cannot have the legal consequence of dispensing with the representa"on of the estate of the deceased vendor. A decree for specific performance is a decree direc"ng enforcement of a contractual obliga"on against the estate of the executant of the agreement. If the executant dies during the pendency of the proceedings, the decree can bind only those who legally represent his estate. Therefore, irrespec"ve of the plain"ff's preference, the estate of the deceased vendor must necessarily remain represented before the Court. 21. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 argued that the pe""oner is claiming an independent "tle on the basis of a Will and, therefore, falls within the category of a stranger as contemplated in Kasturi (supra). This submission cannot be accepted. 22. The pe""oner is not a complete stranger to the agreement. He was originally impleaded as defendant No.2, being an a<es"ng witness to the agreement to sell. More importantly, he admi<edly is one of the sons of deceased Balbir Singh and, therefore, one of his legal representa"ves within the meaning of Sec"on 2(11) CPC. The fact that he addi"onally relies upon a registered Will dated 08.03.2021 executed by the deceased in his favour does not denude him of his status as a legal representa"ve. Whether the Will ul"mately confers exclusive rights upon him or whether the transfer deed dated 09.10.2020 creates superior rights in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 are ques"ons, which do not arise for determina"on while deciding an applica"on under Order I Rule 10 CPC. 23. At this stage, it is also apposite to no"ce that the expression "legal representa$ve" occurring in Sec"on 2(11) CPC is of wide amplitude. It is not confined merely to the heirs, who ul"mately succeed to the estate of the deceased, but includes every person who, in law, represents the estate of the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the expression deserves liberal construc"on, the object being to ensure that the SARITA RANI 2026.07.30 12:01 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.3016 of 2024 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:104401 estate of the deceased is adequately represented in judicial proceedings and that any decree ul"mately passed binds the estate represented before the Court. Therefore, even if rival claims exist inter se regarding succession or the validity of a testamentary disposi"on, such disputes do not denude a person of his status as a legal representa"ve for the purpose of being impleaded in pending proceedings. Thus, for the purposes of Order I Rule 10 CPC, the Court is primarily concerned with whether the estate of the deceased vendor is represented before it and not with finally adjudica"ng the compe"ng claims of succession 24. In Sum=bai and others v. Paras Finance Co., (2007) 10 SCC 82, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a person claims a semblance of "tle and his presence is necessary for complete adjudica"on, the Court ought to adopt a liberal approach while considering impleadment, leaving the rival claims to be adjudicated during trial. Likewise, in Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited, (2013) 5 SCC 397, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognized that where a person has acquired an interest in the subject ma<er of the suit, his presence may become necessary for effec"ve adjudica"on and to avoid mul"plicity of li"ga"on. These decisions do not dilute Kasturi’s ra"o; rather, they explain the circumstances in which impleadment is warranted notwithstanding the plain"ff's objec"on. 25. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 in NAK Engineering Company Private Limited v. Tarun Keshrichand Shah and others, decided on 05.01.2026, also reiterates the se<led principle that the plain"ff, being dominus li$s, ordinarily cannot be compelled to li"gate against persons claiming independent "tle. However, the said judgment does not lay down that legal representa"ves of a deceased contrac"ng party can be excluded from a suit for specific performance. Rather, the dis"nc"on between a stranger asser"ng an independent "tle and a person whose presence is indispensable for complete adjudica"on con"nues to hold the field. 26. Equally important is the posi"on of respondent Nos.3 and 4. They do not claim to represent the estate of deceased Balbir Singh as his SARITA RANI 2026.07.30 12:01 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.3016 of 2024 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:104401 legal representa"ves. Their claim is founded solely upon the transfer deed dated 09.10.2020 allegedly executed during the life"me of Balbir Singh. A subsequent transferee and a legal representa"ve occupy dis"nct legal fields. The presence of one cannot eliminate the necessity of the other. Therefore, merely because respondent Nos.3 and 4 have been impleaded, it cannot be said that the estate of deceased Balbir Singh stands adequately represented. 27. This Court is also unable to overlook the peculiar sequence of events. The plain"ff ini"ally sought subs"tu"on of all the legal representa"ves of deceased Balbir Singh. Subsequently, aBer respondent Nos.3 and 4 sought impleadment and a compromise was placed on record, the applica"on for subs"tu"on was withdrawn and the pe""oner alone was given up. Whether such compromise ul"mately affects the rights of the pe""oner is not a ma<er for considera"on at this stage. Nevertheless, these circumstances reinforce the necessity of ensuring that every person who prima facie represents the estate of the deceased vendor is afforded an opportunity of being heard before a decree for specific performance is passed. 28. The trial Court, therefore, commi<ed a jurisdic"onal error in trea"ng the pe""oner as a stranger claiming an independent "tle without first examining his admi<ed status as one of the legal representa"ves of the deceased executant of the agreement to sell. The impugned order thus suffers from patent illegality and material irregularity in exercise of jurisdic"on warran"ng interference under Ar"cle 227 of the Cons"tu"on of India. 29. Consequently, the present revision pe""on is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.04.2024 (Annexure P-21) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari is set aside. 30. The applica"on filed by the pe""oner under Order I Rule 10 CPC is allowed. The pe""oner shall be impleaded as a defendant in the suit in his capacity as one of the legal representa"ves of deceased Balbir Singh. Page 9 of 10 SARITA RANI 2026.07.30 12:01 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.3016 of 2024 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:104401 31. It is, however, clarified that this Court has expressed no opinion on the validity or otherwise of the registered Will dated 08.03.2021, the legality of the transfer deed dated 09.10.2020, the rival claims of succession or "tle between the pe""oner and respondent Nos.3 and 4, or the merits of the suit for specific performance. All such ques"ons are expressly leB open to be adjudicated by the trial Court independently on the basis of the pleadings and evidence led by the par"es. 32. The learned trial Court shall thereaBer proceed with the suit expedi"ously and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observa"on made herein except to the extent necessary for deciding the present revision. July 30, 2026 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes Whether reportable? : Yes Uploaded on: July 30, 2026 SARITA RANI 2026.07.30 12:01 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order