IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 137 Rajveer Singh Rajesh Benda CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. India has been filed by the plaintiff seeking 04.03.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hisar vide which application filed by respondents No.4 to 8 been allowed defendants No.4 to 8. 2. submits that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction. Relief was sought by the petitioner only against th defendants/respondents No.1 to 3 herein. It is submitted that no relief was IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rajveer Singh Vs. Rajesh Benda & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Advocate Ms. Deepika, Advocate for the petitioner. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of been filed by the plaintiff seeking 04.03.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hisar vide which application filed by respondents No.4 to 8 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allowed and respondents No.4 to 8 have been impleaded as defendants No.4 to 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff vehemently submits that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction. Relief was sought by the petitioner only against th defendants/respondents No.1 to 3 herein. It is submitted that no relief was IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2009-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 01.04.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Advocate Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of been filed by the plaintiff seeking setting aside of order dated 04.03.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hisar vide which under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has and respondents No.4 to 8 have been impleaded as l for the petitioner/plaintiff vehemently submits that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction. Relief was sought by the petitioner only against the original defendants/respondents No.1 to 3 herein. It is submitted that no relief was 4 Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of order dated 04.03.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hisar vide which has and respondents No.4 to 8 have been impleaded as l for the petitioner/plaintiff vehemently submits that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction. Relief e original defendants/respondents No.1 to 3 herein. It is submitted that no relief was SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document sought by the petitioner could not have been impleaded. 3. had filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC at the instance and in collusion with defendant No.3; as none of the defendants No.4 to 8 have any right in the suit property of Will in question Moreover, Will No.49 dated 07.0 has already been challenged by defendant no.3 by filing counter claim. 4. sought impleadment only on the ostensible ground the defendant No.3 is not mentally capable of facing the litigations submitted that however, the said fact is untrue as respondent No.3 had duly filed a written statement in the su in the application (Annexure P4), there is no mention respondents No.4 to 8 as to how and in which manner interest of defendant No.3 is being taken away by the plaintiff has filed written statement and is contesting the suit. therefore, the application has been filed by respondents No.4 to 8 only to achieve some ulterior motive and to delay the suit of the plaintiff. It accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside 5. sought by the petitioner against the respondents No.4 to 8. could not have been impleaded. It is further submitted that the respondents No.4 to 8 filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC at the instance and in collusion with defendant No.3; as none of the defendants No.4 to 8 have any right in the suit property and they no have right to dispute the validity of Will in question; and as it is settled law that plaintiff is master of his suit. Will No.49 dated 07.05.2018 is a registered document and same has already been challenged by defendant no.3 by filing counter claim. It is further submitted that respondents No.4 to sought impleadment only on the ostensible ground the defendant No.3 is not mentally capable of facing the litigations submitted that however, the said fact is untrue as respondent No.3 had duly filed a written statement in the suit, as also counter claim thereto in the application (Annexure P4), there is no mention respondents No.4 to 8 as to how and in which manner interest of defendant No.3 is being taken away by the plaintiff especially when defendant No.3 has filed written statement and is contesting the suit. , the application has been filed by respondents No.4 to 8 only to achieve some ulterior motive and to delay the suit of the plaintiff. It accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside No other argument is made on behalf of the against the respondents No.4 to 8. As such, they It is further submitted that the respondents No.4 to 8 filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC at the instance and in collusion with defendant No.3; as none of the defendants No.4 to 8 have have right to dispute the validity is settled law that plaintiff is master of his suit. .2018 is a registered document and same has already been challenged by defendant no.3 by filing counter claim. It is further submitted that respondents No.4 to 8 had sought impleadment only on the ostensible ground the defendant No.3 is not mentally capable of facing the litigations being 100% disabled. It is submitted that however, the said fact is untrue as respondent No.3 had duly , as also counter claim thereto. Further in the application (Annexure P4), there is no mention made by the respondents No.4 to 8 as to how and in which manner interest of defendant especially when defendant No.3 has filed written statement and is contesting the suit. It is submitted that , the application has been filed by respondents No.4 to 8 only to achieve some ulterior motive and to delay the suit of the plaintiff. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside. made on behalf of the petitioner. As such, they It is further submitted that the respondents No.4 to 8 filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC at the instance and in collusion with defendant No.3; as none of the defendants No.4 to 8 have have right to dispute the validity is settled law that plaintiff is master of his suit. .2018 is a registered document and same had sought impleadment only on the ostensible ground the defendant No.3 is being 100% disabled. It is submitted that however, the said fact is untrue as respondent No.3 had duly . Further the respondents No.4 to 8 as to how and in which manner interest of defendant especially when defendant No.3 It is submitted that , the application has been filed by respondents No.4 to 8 only to is SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6. perused the case file in great detail. 7. filed a Civil Suit (Annexure P1) dated ‘Nil’ for (prohibitory and mandatory) restraining the defendants from entering, interfering into peaceful possession of the plaintiff and humiliating and threatening the plaintiff and forcibly dispossessing him from the ground floor of the house No.64, situated at Defence Colony, Hisar of which the plaintiff is owner in possession in equal share with defendant No.1 on the basis of registered Will bearing No.49 dated 07.05.2018 executed and registered by their father namely Sher Singh @ Shera in his favour, under the provisions of Specific Relief Act, on the basis of evidence of every kind. 8. No.1 and 3 are real brothers and defendant No.2 is near relative of the parties and is residing on the first floor of the house in question. In the said Civil Suit, the defendant No.3 had filed the written statement dated 13.09.2019 along with counterclaim (Annexure P3). Respondents No.4 to 8 had filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure P4) seeking impleadment in the suit of the petitioner to which the petitioner had filed reply dated 13.09.2019 (A I have heard learned counsel for the perused the case file in great detail. Perusal of record of the case shows that the plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit (Annexure P1) dated ‘Nil’ for (prohibitory and mandatory) restraining the defendants from entering, interfering into peaceful possession of the plaintiff and humiliating and threatening the plaintiff and forcibly dispossessing him from the ground floor of the house No.64, situated at Defence Colony, Hisar of which the plaintiff is owner in possession in equal share with defendant he basis of registered Will bearing No.49 dated 07.05.2018 executed and registered by their father namely Sher Singh @ Shera in his favour, under the provisions of Specific Relief Act, on the basis of evidence of every kind. It may be pointed out that the No.1 and 3 are real brothers and defendant No.2 is near relative of the parties and is residing on the first floor of the house in question. In the said Civil Suit, the defendant No.3 had filed the written statement dated 13.09.2019 along with counterclaim (Annexure P3). Respondents No.4 to 8 had filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure P4) seeking impleadment in the suit of the petitioner to which the petitioner had filed reply dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P5). arned counsel for the petitionerand Perusal of record of the case shows that the plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit (Annexure P1) dated ‘Nil’ for permanent injunction (prohibitory and mandatory) restraining the defendants from entering, interfering into peaceful possession of the plaintiff and also from harassing, humiliating and threatening the plaintiff and forcibly dispossessing him from the ground floor of the house No.64, situated at Defence Colony, Hisar of which the plaintiff is owner in possession in equal share with defendant he basis of registered Will bearing No.49 dated 07.05.2018 executed and registered by their father namely Sher Singh @ Shera in his favour, under the provisions of Specific Relief Act, on the basis of evidence that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 3 are real brothers and defendant No.2 is near relative of the parties and is residing on the first floor of the house in question. In the said Civil Suit, the defendant No.3 had filed the written statement dated 13.09.2019 along with counterclaim (Annexure P3). Respondents No.4 to 8 had filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure P4) seeking impleadment in the suit of the petitioner to which the petitioner nnexure P5). 4 and Perusal of record of the case shows that the plaintiff had permanent injunction (prohibitory and mandatory) restraining the defendants from entering, lso from harassing, humiliating and threatening the plaintiff and forcibly dispossessing him from the ground floor of the house No.64, situated at Defence Colony, Hisar of which the plaintiff is owner in possession in equal share with defendant he basis of registered Will bearing No.49 dated 07.05.2018 executed and registered by their father namely Sher Singh @ Shera in his favour, under the provisions of Specific Relief Act, on the basis of evidence plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 3 are real brothers and defendant No.2 is near relative of the parties and is residing on the first floor of the house in question. In the said Civil Suit, the defendant No.3 had filed the written statement dated 13.09.2019 along with counterclaim (Annexure P3). Respondents No.4 to 8 had filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure P4) seeking impleadment in the suit of the petitioner to which the petitioner SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9. P4), shows that the respondents Singh/father of the petitioner. necessary parties as they also had right an is further stated in the application, petitioner was based on fraud made under deep impleadment on the ground that interest and benefit of defendant No.3 was required to be protected as he was incapable of independently facing the present litigation 10. wherein he ha 07.05.2018 executed by Sher Singh in favour of the petitioner was null and void. Keeping in view the above facts, it is clear that respondents No.4 to 8 were also necessary parties to the lis affected while impleadment of the said respondents. 11. in the impugned order. Present petition accordingly stands 12. 01.04.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: A perusal of the application dated 30.7.2019 shows that the respondents No.4 to 8 Singh/father of the petitioner. It was pleaded that as such they were necessary parties as they also had right and interest in the suit property. tated in the application, that the Will relied upon by the petitioner was based on fraud caused by coercion, undue influence and was made under deep-rooted conspiracy. The said respondents also sought impleadment on the ground that interest and benefit of defendant No.3 was required to be protected as he was incapable of independently facing the present litigation being 100% disabled. Furthermore, defendant No.3 had filed a counterclaim e has sought a declaration (Annexure P3) that the Will dated 07.05.2018 executed by Sher Singh in favour of the petitioner was null and Keeping in view the above facts, it is clear that respondents No.4 to 8 were also necessary parties to the lis as their rights would also be directly while no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by the impleadment of the said respondents. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfer in the impugned order. Present petition accordingly stands Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No A perusal of the application dated 30.7.2019 (Annexure No.4 to 8 are also daughters of Sher It was pleaded that as such they were d interest in the suit property. It that the Will relied upon by the caused by coercion, undue influence and was rooted conspiracy. The said respondents also sought impleadment on the ground that interest and benefit of defendant No.3 was required to be protected as he was incapable of independently facing defendant No.3 had filed a counterclaim sought a declaration (Annexure P3) that the Will dated 07.05.2018 executed by Sher Singh in favour of the petitioner was null and Keeping in view the above facts, it is clear that respondents No.4 to 8 their rights would also be directly no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by the In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order. Present petition accordingly stands dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 4 (Annexure are also daughters of Sher It was pleaded that as such they were It that the Will relied upon by the caused by coercion, undue influence and was rooted conspiracy. The said respondents also sought impleadment on the ground that interest and benefit of defendant No.3 was required to be protected as he was incapable of independently facing defendant No.3 had filed a counterclaim sought a declaration (Annexure P3) that the Will dated 07.05.2018 executed by Sher Singh in favour of the petitioner was null and Keeping in view the above facts, it is clear that respondents No.4 to 8 their rights would also be directly no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by the e SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document