2025:HHC:29654 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.196 of 2021 Decided on: 28.08.2025 Ramanand … Petitioner Versus The Baghat Urban Co-operative Bank Limited & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, an application filed by respondent Geeta Devi for being impleaded as a defendant in the civil suit has been allowed. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is bad, for the reason that in a suit for permanent and prohibitory injunction filed by the petitioner against defendants- Baghat Urban Co-operative Bank and the authorized Officer under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act), 2002, Geeta Devi was neither a necessary party nor a proper party. He submitted 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29654 that what forced the petitioner to file the suit was that one fine day a Notice under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, dated 08.11.2017, was affixed in the suit premises for the possession thereof, which Notice was in the name of Geeta Devi and because the property in issue was owned and possessed by the plaintiff, this forced him to file a suit for permanent and prohibitory injunction against the Authorities which had issued the Notice and the dominus litis was that of the plaintiff and as he had impleaded the Authorities which had issued the Notice and also the Bank concerned, in these circumstances, Geeta Devi was neither a necessary nor a proper party. This important aspect of the matter as per the learned Counsel has been ignored by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 argued that the property in issue was neither owned nor possessed by the plaintiff and rather it was owned and possessed by Geeta Devi. As the plaintiff/petitioner was illegally espousing his title upon the suit land, this forced Geeta Devi to file an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, which was rightly allowed by the learned Trial Court as is evident from the findings returned therein, as the learned Trial Court rightly observed that the documents demonstrated that the suit land was owned and 3 2025:HHC:29654 possessed by Geeta Devi who had inherited the same from her father’s side in terms of the Family Settlement Deed dated 30.03.2012. Accordingly, he prayed that as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order. 5. This Court is of the considered view that in the facts of the case, the impugned order cannot be faulted with. Whereas, on one hand, the plaintiff is claiming himself to be the owner in possession of the suit land and thus, seeking a decree of permanent and prohibitory injunction against the Bank and the Officer of the SARFAESI, respondent Geeta Devi is claiming ownership and possession of the suit land on the basis of a Family Settlement Deed through her father’s side. In these peculiar circumstances, it cannot be said that Geeta Devi is a stranger or not a necessary or proper party for the purpose of adjudication of the suit. As it is a fact that the cause of action on the basis of which the suit was filed by the plaintiff was the affixation of a Notice by original defendants No.1 and 2, issued in the name of Geeta Devi, obviously she was a necessary party to the lis and in fact this Court is of the considered view that she should have been impleaded as a party defendant by the plaintiff himself. However, as this was not done and as 4 2025:HHC:29654 subsequently, Geeta Devi herself approached the Court under an application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for her impleadment, learned Trial Court rightly allowed her application and ordered her impleadment as a defendant, as the documents relied upon by Geeta Devi for the purpose of impleadment did demonstrate that the suit property was owned and possessed by her, which she inherited from her father’s side by way of a Family Settlement Deed. 6. Accordingly, in light of above observations, this petition is dismissed, as this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. However, it is clarified that the observations made by this Court in this order are only for the purpose of adjudicating this lis and the same shall have no bearing as far as the adjudication of the lis before the learned Trial Court is concerned. It is also clarified that this Court has not returned any positive finding that the suit property indeed is owned and possessed by Geeta Devi. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 28, 2025 (Rishi)