IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 112 CR-2457-2025 Date of Decision.:25.04.2025 Surinder Kaur …..Pe,,oner Vs. Manjit Kaur and Another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vishal Sharma (Vasudeva), Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of this civil revision under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India, peoner prays for se'ng aside the order dated 04.01.2025, whereby applicaon moved under Order I Rule 10 CPC by respondent No.2 Paramjit Kaur to implead her as a party, has been allowed. Peoner also prays to give appropriate direcons to the trial Court to proceed with the trial in the light of wri3en statement dated 12.08.2024 filed by defendant- respondent No.1 Manjit Kaur. 2. Peoner is the plainff before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar bearing CIS No.CS-359-2024 tled “Surinder Kaur v. Manjit Kaur etc.”. Plainff prayed for declaraon that sale deed dated 14.08.2023 executed by her in favour of defendant Manjit Kaur and the consequent mutaon regarding the property in dispute were null and void. Defendant Manjit Kaur through her a3orney Amarjit Kaur made a statement dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure P-4), as per which compromise had been effected between the pares and defendant had no objecon, if the impugned sale deed executed in favour of defendant was canceled along NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.28 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2457-2025 -2- with consequent mutaon. 3. However, an applicaon under Order I Rule 10 CPC was moved by Smt. Paramjit Kaur, who is the daughter-in-law of plainff Surinder Kaur. According to her, she was residing in the suit property on the first floor along with the minor child. On account of the matrimonial disputes with her husband, he along with plainff wanted to dispossess her from the suit property, which had compelled her to file a suit for permanent injuncon and that interim injuncon was granted in her favour. As plainff had executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 with mala fide intenon to deprive her (applicant) of the valuable rights in the property, so she had already moved an applicaon under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. Claiming that her substanal rights are involved in the suit property, she prayed to be impleaded as a necessary party. 4. The trial Court by way of impugned order dated 04.01.2025 accepted the applicaon by holding that presence of the applicant was necessary for proper adjudicaon of the ma3er. 5. Assailing the order, it is contended by learned counsel that plainff having challenged the sale deed executed by her in favour of the defendant, the said dispute could be adjudicated without the presence of the applicant and therefore, the applicant Paramjit Kaur has been wrongly directed to be impleaded as a party. 6. There is no merit in the contenon. It is not disputed that applicant is residing in the property in dispute and an injuncon order has been passed in her favour, as the suit property is her shared household. In these circumstances, trial Court has rightly held that applicant being the necessary and proper party so, she is required to be heard for adjudicang the ma3er properly. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.28 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2457-2025 -3- 7. This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. No merits. Dismissed. ( DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 25, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.28 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document