CR-7093-2025 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7093-2025 Date of decision: 05.05.2026 Jaswinder Kaur ...Peoner Versus Ashok Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Madhur Singla, Advocate for the pe..oner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present revision pe..on has been filed under Ar.cle 227 of the Cons.tu.on of India assailing the order dated 16.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby an applica.on moved by the pe..oner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for her impleadment as a defendant in Civil Suit No. CS-1070-2013 .tled ‘Ashok Kumar and others vs. Mohinder Singh and others’ has been dismissed. 2. The factual matrix, as borne out from the record, is that the property in dispute originally belonged to one Ram Ji Dass, who had entered into an agreement to sell dated 08.09.1975 in favour of Sarwan Singh and had also delivered possession upon receipt of earnest money of ₹5,000/-. Sarwan Singh ins.tuted a suit for specific performance of the said agreement; however, the trial Court vide judgment dated 20.05.1981 declined the relief of specific performance and granted only the alterna.ve relief of recovery of earnest money. The said judgment aAained finality up to the High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 2588 of 1983 decided on 20.03.2009. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.07 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7093-2025 [2] 3. Subsequently, the legal heirs of Ram Ji Dass ins.tuted the present suit in the year 2013 seeking recovery of possession from the legal heirs of Sarwan Singh, asser.ng that the laAer had no subsis.ng right in the suit property in view of the earlier adjudica.on. 4. The suit progressed substan.ally and had reached the stage of rebuAal/arguments, when the pe..oner moved an applica.on under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC claiming that she is one of the legal heirs of Sarwan Singh through her father Charanjit Singh son of Sarwan and, therefore, ought to be impleaded as a defendant. The said applica.on has been dismissed by the learned trial Court primarily on the ground that the pe..oner is neither a necessary nor a proper party and that her impleadment at such a belated stage would only delay the proceedings. 5. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the pe..oner has contended that the pe..oner has an interest in the property and that her rights would be affected by the outcome of the suit. 6. However, it is not disputed that the pe..oner is not in possession of the suit property. It is also evident from the record that other legal heirs of Sarwan Singh are already par.es to the suit, though some of them have been proceeded against ex parte. 7. The scope of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is well defined. A party can be impleaded only if such party is either necessary for passing an effec.ve decree or is required for complete and proper adjudica.on of the issues involved. In a suit for specific performance or in disputes of similar nature, only those par.es are necessary, whose presence is essen.al to decide the lis between the par.es to the contract, and a third party claiming independent rights cannot be added merely on the basis of such claim. A person is not to be added as a party merely because he has some semblance of interest unless his presence is indispensable for effec.ve YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.07 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7093-2025 [3] adjudica.on. 8. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the lis in the suit is confined to recovery of possession by the legal heirs of Ram Ji Dass from the legal heirs of Sarwan Singh. The estate of Sarwan Singh is already represented before the Court. The pe..oner, who is admiAedly not in possession, does not have any independent or dis.nct right, which requires adjudica.on in the present proceedings. 9. Another significant aspect is the stage, at which the applica.on has been filed. The suit is of the year 2013 and had reached the stage of final arguments, when the present applica.on came to be moved. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that belated impleadment applica.ons, par.cularly at the fag end of trial, should not be entertained unless a clear case of necessity is made out. In the present case, no such compelling reason has been shown. 10. The reasoning recorded by the learned trial Court shows that it has duly considered all relevant aspects, including the nature of the suit, the absence of possession of the pe..oner, the representa.on of the estate by exis.ng par.es, and the belated stage of the proceedings. No jurisdic.onal error, illegality, or perversity can be said to have been commiAed. 11. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere in exercise of supervisory jurisdic.on under Ar.cle 227 of the Cons.tu.on of India. The present revision pe..on is, therefore, dismissed. 05.05.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.07 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document