CM(M) No.249/2025 CM No.3943/2025 CM No.3944/2025 Page No. 1 of 5 Item No.121 Suppl. List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No.249/2025 CM No.3943/2025 CM No.3944/2025 PARVEENA KUMARI …PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Sajad Ahmad Sofi, Advocate. Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER(0RAL) 02.07.2025 1) The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for challenging order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned Civil Subordinate Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Srinagar (for short “the trial court”), whereby application of respondent No.2 seeking impleadment as a party/defendant to the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, has been allowed. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the trial court, whereby the review petition filed against order dated 27.02.2025 has been dismissed. 2) Heard and considered. CM(M) No.249/2025 CM No.3943/2025 CM No.3944/2025 Page No. 2 of 5 3) It appears that the petitioner has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against respondent No.1 for restraining him from causing any sort of interference into the construction activities undertaken by the plaintiff on 14 marlas of land falling under Khasra Nos.85 and 86 situated at Mouza Sonwar Tehsil Khas District Srinagar. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit land in terms of sale deed executed on 27.07.2021 from one Tariq Ahmad Mir S/o Ghulam Mohammad Mir R/o Indra Nagar, Srinagar. It has also been claimed by the plaintiff that she had applied for permission for raising construction on the suit land but because respondent No.1/defendant did not pass any order on the said application, it amounted to deemed sanction in terms of Section 238(6) of the Cantonment Act, 2006, and, accordingly, the plaintiff started raising construction on the suit land. It has been alleged that respondent No.1/defendant is preventing the plaintiff from raising construction on the suit land. 4) During pendency of the suit, respondent No.2 filed an application before the learned trial court seeking his impleadment as party to the suit. In the application, it was contended by respondent No.2 that the land in question has been classified as B-3 Defense Land and has been placed CM(M) No.249/2025 CM No.3943/2025 CM No.3944/2025 Page No. 3 of 5 under the management of Defense Estates Officer. Thus, the suit land is the property of Union of India. It has been claimed in the said application that the suit property, which falls within the Cantonment area, has been transferred to the control of Military Department in terms of Command Order No.273 dated 22.09.1939 issued by His Highness the Maharaja Bahadur. On this basis, it has been claimed by respondent No.2 that the land in question could not have been transferred to the petitioner and no construction can be raised thereon. 5) The learned trial court, after hearing the parties and after analysing the pleadings of the parties came to the conclusion that respondent No.2 is a necessary and proper party having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the case. Accordingly, vide impugned order dated 27.02.2025, the application of respondent No.2 was allowed and he was impleaded as defendant No.2 to the suit. The review petition filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order came to be dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 27.06.2025. 6) It has been contended by the petitioner that the impugned orders passed by trial court are grossly CM(M) No.249/2025 CM No.3943/2025 CM No.3944/2025 Page No. 4 of 5 erroneous because the plaintiff had sought injunction against defendant Cantonment Board only and not against Defence Estates Officer. It has been further contended that the application was made by the Defence Estates Officer only with a view to prolong the proceedings and that by allowing the impleadment application, the nature of suit has been changed. 7) Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the CPC vests power with the court to implead any person as party to the suit either as plaintiff or as defendant who ought to have been joined as such or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Such power can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the proceedings, either on the application of the party or otherwise. A party to a suit may be either a necessary party or a proper party. A ‘necessary party’ is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court whereas a ‘proper party’ is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, CM(M) No.249/2025 CM No.3943/2025 CM No.3944/2025 Page No. 5 of 5 though he may not be a person in favour or against whom a decree is to be made. 8) Turning to the facts of the present case. The plaintiff seeks an order of restraint against the original defendant so that she is able to raise construction on the land of which she claims to be owner. The ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land is being disputed by respondent No.2, according to whom the land has been vested in the Ministry of Defense, Union of India and, as such, the same could not have been transferred in favour of the plaintiff. It is the further case of respondent No.2 that no construction could be raised on the suit land. Thus, not only the title of the plaintiff to the suit land but her right to raise construction thereon is being disputed and obstructed by respondent No.2, as such, the issues involved in the suit cannot be adjudicated upon without the presence of respondent No. 2 nor an effective decree can be passed without his presence. Thus, the said respondent is not only a proper party but he is also a necessary party to the suit. Thus, there was no option for the learned trial court but to implead respondent No.2/applicant as party/defendant to the suit. 9) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere in the well-reasoned order passed by the learned CM(M) No.249/2025 CM No.3943/2025 CM No.3944/2025 Page No. 6 of 5 trial court. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly along with connected CMs. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar, 02.07.2025 “Bhat Altaf” Whether the order is reportable: YES/NO