IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 204 CR-5368-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.07.2025 NAFE SINGH …..PETITIONER Vs. BALWANT PURI AND OTHERS …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sawariya, Advocate for Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Anuj Balian , Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Prerna Malhotra, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. ******* DEEPAK GUPTA, J. In Civil Suit bearing CS No.1055 of 2022 tled ‘Balwant Puri Vs. SDO UHBVN and Others’, pending before learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kaithal, the peoner herein had moved an applicaon under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as a party, which has been declined by the trial Court by way of the impugned order dated 17.08.2023 (Annexure P-7). Said order is now assailed before this Court. 2. On 26.09.2023, while issuing noce of moon, the following order was passed by this Court:- “Peoner submits that the electric connecon in dispute was illegally installed in a land belonging to Gram Panchayat of village Sakra in the name of respondent No.1-Balwant Puri by respondents No.2 and 3 in an illegal manner; that when the peoner came to know about the same, he gave an applicaon in this regard to Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal and resultantly, the electric connecon in dispute was disconnected by the concerned authories. The peoner has further submi<ed that therea=er, PRIYANKA 2025.07.07 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5368-2023 (O&M) respondent No.1 filed civil suit seeking restoraon of the said illegal electric connecon in his name and in the said civil suit, learned trial Court passed order dated 15.6.2022, whereby interim direcon was given to restore the said electric connecon and ulmately, the electric connecon in dispute has been restored. The peoner has further submi<ed that respondent No.1 has got no right to use the electric connecon in dispute. It is further submi<ed that he moved an applicaon under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead him as party to the suit but the same has been declined by the learned trial Court vide impugned order. Noce to respondents No.1 to 3 for 28.11.2023. To be shown immediately a=er urgent ma<ers.” 3. Appearance has been made by the opposite side. Counsels for both the pares have been heard. 4. It is conceded by learned counsel for the peoner that peoner is not the owner of the land, on which the electricity connecon in queson was issued and the restoraon of which has been sought by the plainff-respondent. It is also the conceded posion that it is the Gram Panchayat, which is owner of the land in queson. 5. Though Gram Panchayat has also not been impleaded as a party to the suit, but learned counsel for the respondent-plainff has given an undertaking before this Court that he will move necessary applicaon before trial Court for impleading the Gram Panchayat i.e. the owner of the land as a party to the suit. 6. In view of the aforesaid assurance, where owner of the land shall be impleaded as a party, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 17.08.2023, rejecng the applicaon of the peoner to implead him as a party. The trial Court has rightly observed that before an applicaon under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC can be allowed, it must be shown that the party sought to be impleaded has a direct interest in the relief claimed and that their absence would render the decree ineffecve. A necessary party is the one without whom no effecve order can PRIYANKA 2025.07.07 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5368-2023 (O&M) be made, while a proper party is not essenal for the outcome but whose presence would assist the Court in fully and effecvely resolving all issues involved in the suit. 7. In the present case, the peoner-applicant is u<er stranger. Merely because he is resident of the same village does not gives him any locus to be impleaded as a party. His presence is not at all required for disposing of the suit, in which the plainff-respondent has sought restoraon of electricity connecon parcularly, when the owner of the land in queson will be impleaded as a party as per the assurance of the learned counsel for the respondent-plainff. Simply because earlier electricity connecon was disconnected on the complaint of the peoner, cannot be itself a ground to implead him as a party to the suit. 8. As such, holding the peon to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that on an applicaon to be moved by the plainff to implead Gram Panchayat as a party, the trial Court shall pass necessary orders therein in the light of the observaons made above. 04.07.2025 Pry (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No PRIYANKA 2025.07.07 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document