CR-3714- 144 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Barinder Singh Gursharan Singh and ors CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : HARKESH MANUJA, laid to an order dated 04.08.2022 passed by Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Karnal, whereby preferred at the instance of respondent No.4 Rule 10 CPC recovery and mandatory injunction with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, stands allowed. 2. Understanding (for short ‘the MoU’) dated 2 between plaintiff No.1; defendants No.1 and 2 with respect to the self-acquired properties owned by defendant No.1/ respondent No.1 -2022 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Date Barinder Singh VERSUS Gursharan Singh and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present : Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Rajesh K. Dhiman, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 04.08.2022 passed by Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Karnal, whereby preferred at the instance of respondent No.4 le 10 CPC for seeking her impleadment in the suit for declaration, recovery and mandatory injunction with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, stands allowed. Briefly stating, based on Understanding (for short ‘the MoU’) dated 2 between plaintiff No.1; defendants No.1 and 2 with respect to the acquired properties owned by defendant No.1/ respondent No.1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R-3714-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.09.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA r. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate 3. Mr. Rajesh K. Dhiman, Advocate By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Karnal, whereby an application preferred at the instance of respondent No.4 having invoked Order 1 seeking her impleadment in the suit for declaration, recovery and mandatory injunction with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, stands allowed. Briefly stating, based on an alleged Memorandum of Understanding (for short ‘the MoU’) dated 21.01.2015, entered into between plaintiff No.1; defendants No.1 and 2 with respect to the acquired properties owned by defendant No.1/ respondent No.1 By way of present revision petition, challenge has been learned Additional application Order 1 seeking her impleadment in the suit for declaration, recovery and mandatory injunction with a consequential relief of alleged Memorandum of entered into between plaintiff No.1; defendants No.1 and 2 with respect to the acquired properties owned by defendant No.1/ respondent No.1 SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.29 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3714- (hereinafter referred to as ‘resp plaintiff No.1 and his wife for its (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) and defendant No.2/respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent No.2’) happen to be sons o proceedings, respondent No.1 and sister of petitioner as well as respondent No.2 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC with a prayer for her impleadment though opposed at the instance of petitioner, however, the same was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 04.08.2022 and hence the present revision petition. 3. the petitioner defending the suit respondent No.4 who happens to be the sister of petitioner neither necessary; nor even the validity of MoU dated 2 that even otherwise, respondent No.4/ defendant No.4, in case was not impleaded as party, any judgment and decree passed in the present suit was not going t of respondent No.1 and thus the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court was liable to be set aside. 4. -2022 (O&M) [2] (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent No.1’) plaintiff No.1 and his wife for its enforcement (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) and defendant No.2/respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent No.2’) happen to be sons of respondent No.1. During proceedings, respondent No.4, who happens to be the daughter of respondent No.1 and sister of petitioner as well as respondent No.2 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC with a prayer for impleadment as one of the defendants. The said application was opposed at the instance of petitioner, however, the same was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 04.08.2022 and hence the present revision petition. Impugning the aforementioned the petitioner submits that once the father/ respondent No.1 was defending the suit relating to his self respondent No.4 who happens to be the sister of petitioner neither necessary; nor even proper party as regards adjudication of the validity of MoU dated 21.01.2015. Learned counsel also argues that even otherwise, respondent No.4/ defendant No.4, in case was not impleaded as party, any judgment and decree passed in the present suit was not going to be binding on her rights qua the estate of respondent No.1 and thus the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court was liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf ondent No.1’), suit was filed by enforcement. Plaintiff No.1/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) and defendant No.2/respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent No.2’) f respondent No.1. During the pendency of who happens to be the daughter of respondent No.1 and sister of petitioner as well as respondent No.2 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC with a prayer for as one of the defendants. The said application was opposed at the instance of petitioner, however, the same was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 04.08.2022 and Impugning the aforementioned order, learned counsel for submits that once the father/ respondent No.1 was relating to his self-acquired property, then respondent No.4 who happens to be the sister of petitioner, was party as regards adjudication of .01.2015. Learned counsel also argues that even otherwise, respondent No.4/ defendant No.4, in case was not impleaded as party, any judgment and decree passed in the o be binding on her rights qua the estate of respondent No.1 and thus the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court was liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf suit was filed by . Plaintiff No.1/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) and defendant No.2/respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent No.2’) the pendency of who happens to be the daughter of respondent No.1 and sister of petitioner as well as respondent No.2, moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC with a prayer for as one of the defendants. The said application was opposed at the instance of petitioner, however, the same was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 04.08.2022 and order, learned counsel for submits that once the father/ respondent No.1 was , then was party as regards adjudication of .01.2015. Learned counsel also argues that even otherwise, respondent No.4/ defendant No.4, in case was not impleaded as party, any judgment and decree passed in the o be binding on her rights qua the estate of respondent No.1 and thus the impugned order passed by the On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.29 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3714- of respondent No.4 submits that since the disp to the self No.4 being her daughter, was a necessary party for complete and effective adjudication of the the impugned order calls for no 5. through the paper 6. dispute relates to the self No.1, qua which declaration, recov alongwith claimed by petitioner on the basis of MoU dated 2 whereby he has been conferred certain rights in the estate of respondent No.1. 7. Court, respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 has disputed the factum of execution of MoU. In such circumstances, daughter, though may not be having any vested right in the estate of her father life time of her father interest in the would be necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the and also for passing of an effective decree in the suit 8. -2022 (O&M) [3] of respondent No.4 submits that since the disp to the self-acquired property of respondent No.1, thus respondent No.4 being her daughter, was a necessary party for complete and effective adjudication of the lis. Learned counsel thus submits that the impugned order calls for no interference. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the dispute relates to the self-acquired property owned by respondent No.1, qua which declaration, recov alongwith consequential relief of permanent injunction has been claimed by petitioner on the basis of MoU dated 2 whereby he has been conferred certain rights in the estate of respondent No.1. In the written statement Court, respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 has disputed the factum of execution of MoU. In such circumstances, daughter, though may not be having any vested right in the estate of her father- respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 life time of her father, yet definitely was having some interest in the suit property being daughter would be necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the and also for passing of an effective decree in the suit In view of the above, there being no jurisdictional error in of respondent No.4 submits that since the dispute in the suit related acquired property of respondent No.1, thus respondent No.4 being her daughter, was a necessary party for complete and . Learned counsel thus submits that interference. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the acquired property owned by respondent No.1, qua which declaration, recovery and mandatory injunction consequential relief of permanent injunction has been claimed by petitioner on the basis of MoU dated 21.01.2015; whereby he has been conferred certain rights in the estate of filed before the learned trial Court, respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 has disputed the factum of execution of MoU. In such circumstances, respondent No.4 being her daughter, though may not be having any vested right in the estate of espondent No.1/ defendant No.1 at this stage during the was having some semblance of being daughter. Thus, her presence would be necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the and also for passing of an effective decree in the suit. In view of the above, there being no jurisdictional error in ute in the suit related acquired property of respondent No.1, thus respondent No.4 being her daughter, was a necessary party for complete and . Learned counsel thus submits that I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the acquired property owned by respondent ery and mandatory injunction consequential relief of permanent injunction has been .01.2015; whereby he has been conferred certain rights in the estate of filed before the learned trial Court, respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 has disputed the factum of respondent No.4 being her daughter, though may not be having any vested right in the estate of at this stage during the semblance of her presence would be necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the lis In view of the above, there being no jurisdictional error in SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.29 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3714- the reasoning recorded by the trial Court, the impugned order dated 04.08.2022 calls for interference. 9. 10. disposed of. 25.09.2025 sanjay -2022 (O&M) [4] the reasoning recorded by the trial Court, the impugned order dated 04.08.2022 calls for interference. Consequently, the present revision is dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 25.09.2025 ( Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether Reportable ? the reasoning recorded by the trial Court, the impugned order dated sent revision is dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No Yes/No the reasoning recorded by the trial Court, the impugned order dated Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.29 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document