CR-5317-2025 262 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Paramjit Kaur Sarabjeet Kaur and Others CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Iva Mr MANDEEP PANNU 1. Present Paramjit Kaur 28.07.2025 (Annexure P in appeal titled as 2. Brief facts plaintiffs and defendants are real sisters and brother parties pertains plaintiffs, who are the sisters of the defendants property having allegedly claim to be the exclusive owners of the property in dispute purchased it from their father here that Plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 along with their co 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Reserved on : Pronounced on: VERSUS and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Ivan Singh Khosa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. Present revision petition has been filed by petitioner/plaintiff No.1 Paramjit Kaur against the orders dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure P-11) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala as “Sarabjeet Kaur and Another Vs. Paramjit Kaur Brief facts, in order to understand the controversy plaintiffs and defendants are real sisters and brother parties pertains to inheritance of their father namely, H who are the sisters of the defendants property having allegedly inherited it from their father. The claim to be the exclusive owners of the property in dispute purchased it from their father vide various sale deeds laintiff No.2-Kulwinder Kaur was Nos. 3 and 4 along with their co-accused during the pendency of the suit and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5317-2025 (O&M) Reserved on :- 08.08.2025 Pronounced on:-11.08.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU n Singh Khosa, Advocate for the petitioner. , Advocate for respondent No.1. n filed by petitioner/plaintiff No.1 07.2025 (Annexure P-9) and dated passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala Vs. Paramjit Kaur and Others”. in order to understand the controversy, are that the plaintiffs and defendants are real sisters and brothers. The dispute between the itance of their father namely, Hardaman Singh. The who are the sisters of the defendants, claim 1/4th share in the suit it from their father. The defendants, however claim to be the exclusive owners of the property in dispute asserting that they had vide various sale deeds. It is pertinent to mention Kulwinder Kaur was allegedly murdered by defendant during the pendency of the suit and were -1- n filed by petitioner/plaintiff No.1 – and dated passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala are that the . The dispute between the ingh. The share in the suit however, that they had . It is pertinent to mention allegedly murdered by defendant were TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5317-2025 sent to jail. Therefore, plaintiff No.2/proforma represented through her legal heir Hargun Kaur. 3. During the pendency of the suit under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 referred to as, ‘CPC’) alienating the suit property on the basis of alleged sale deeds and further from changing the nature of the suit property or rai Learned Civil Ju of the application with the “in case the defendants alienate the property during the pendency of the suit, clear fact described in the same deed itself and intimation to the Court with respect to purchaser along with complete particulars within 10 days of such act, shall be given as we rendered 4. Feeling a Additional District Judge, Patiala, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2024. 5. Subsequently, during the pendency of the suit in judicial custody Class, Patiala. They Central Jail, Patiala, t execution and registration of lease deed pertaining to suit land in favour of Sarabjeet Kaur w/o Jaspal Singh 2025 (O&M) sent to jail. Therefore, plaintiff No.2/proforma represented through her legal heir Hargun Kaur. During the pendency of the suit, under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘CPC’) seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property on the basis of alleged sale deeds and further from changing the nature of the suit property or rai Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala vide order dated 23.10.2023 disposed of the application with the following observation in case the defendants alienate the property during the pendency of the suit, clear fact regarding pendency of present suit shall be described in the same deed itself and intimation to the Court with respect to purchaser along with complete particulars within 10 days of such act, shall be given, so that Court would keep a trace of owner as well as subject matter of the suit, to protect the suit from being rendered infructuous.” Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, which was dismissed vide order dated Subsequently, during the pendency of the suit in judicial custody, were produced before the Court of Patiala. They moved an application seeking directions to the Patiala, to take them to the office of S execution and registration of lease deed pertaining to suit land in favour of Sarabjeet Kaur w/o Jaspal Singh and Surinder Pal Kaur sent to jail. Therefore, plaintiff No.2/proforma-respondent No. 5 has been represented through her legal heir Hargun Kaur. the plaintiffs filed an application of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property on the basis of alleged sale deeds and further from changing the nature of the suit property or raising any construction thereon. Patiala vide order dated 23.10.2023 disposed observation:- in case the defendants alienate the property during the pendency of regarding pendency of present suit shall be described in the same deed itself and intimation to the Court with respect to purchaser along with complete particulars within 10 days so that Court would keep a trace of owner subject matter of the suit, to protect the suit from being plaintiffs filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, which was dismissed vide order dated Subsequently, during the pendency of the suit, defendants, who were ore the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist moved an application seeking directions to the Superintendent to the office of Sub-Registrar Patiala for execution and registration of lease deed pertaining to suit land in favour of Surinder Pal Kaur w/o Late Jaswinder Singh -2- respondent No. 5 has been the plaintiffs filed an application of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property on the basis of alleged sale deeds and further from thereon. Patiala vide order dated 23.10.2023 disposed in case the defendants alienate the property during the pendency of regarding pendency of present suit shall be described in the same deed itself and intimation to the Court with respect to purchaser along with complete particulars within 10 days so that Court would keep a trace of owner subject matter of the suit, to protect the suit from being plaintiffs filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, which was dismissed vide order dated who were Judicial Magistrate, Ist uperintendent, Registrar Patiala for execution and registration of lease deed pertaining to suit land in favour of Late Jaswinder Singh TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5317-2025 [respondents No. 1 and 2 to as “respondents No. 1 and 2 the Court and the lease deed was executed accordingly. 6. 6. On this development, plaintiffs 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with restraining the defendants from changing the nature of suit land and raising any kind of construction. Learned Civil Judge, 04.11.2024 disposed of the “as per lease deed placed on record by defendant himself question defendants are restrained from the 7. Feeling aggrieved, Sarabjee Nos. 1 and 2-herein Patiala along with CPC for implea to contest the suit by filing written statement. Sarbj (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stay application which was allowed by learned Additional Session Judge Patial vide impugned order 23.07.2025 holding “3rd demonstrated themselves to be aggrieved p although upon, thereby creat the time the 2025 (O&M) No. 1 and 2/ 3rd party in present revision Petition to as “respondents No. 1 and 2 –herein”)]. The said application was allowed by the Court and the lease deed was executed accordingly. On this development, plaintiffs filed another application 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC for granting ad restraining the defendants from changing the nature of suit land and raising any kind of construction. Learned Civil Judge, Junior 1.2024 disposed of the said application by observing as per lease deed placed on record by defendant himself question has been shown to be an agricultural land defendants are restrained from changing the pendency of suit.” Feeling aggrieved, Sarabjeet Kaur and Surinder Pal Kaur (respondent herein) filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala along with an application under Order 1 CPC for impleading them as defendants No.3 and 4 in the suit and allowing them to contest the suit by filing written statement. Sarbj (respondent Nos. 1 and 2-herein) also moved an application stay application which was allowed by learned Additional Session Judge Patial vide impugned order 23.07.2025 holding as under: rd party Surinder Pal Kaur and Sarbjit Kaur had sufficiently demonstrated themselves to be aggrieved p although executed during pendency are upon, thereby creating their interest in subject property. Further at the time the registered lease deeds were executed party in present revision Petition (hereinafter referred . The said application was allowed by the Court and the lease deed was executed accordingly. filed another application under Order Section 151 CPC for granting ad-interim induction restraining the defendants from changing the nature of suit land and raising any Junior Division, Patiala vide order dated application by observing as under:- as per lease deed placed on record by defendant himself, property in shown to be an agricultural land. Therefore changing the nature of suit land till t Kaur and Surinder Pal Kaur (respondent ) filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 as defendants No.3 and 4 in the suit and allowing them to contest the suit by filing written statement. Sarbjeet Kaur and Surinder Pal Kaur ) also moved an application for leave to appeal in stay application which was allowed by learned Additional Session Judge Patial as under:- party Surinder Pal Kaur and Sarbjit Kaur had sufficiently demonstrated themselves to be aggrieved parties. The lease deeds, during pendency are registered, and were acted their interest in subject property. Further at egistered lease deeds were executed, there was no stay -3- (hereinafter referred . The said application was allowed by under Order interim induction restraining the defendants from changing the nature of suit land and raising any Patiala vide order dated property in Therefore, the nature of suit land till t Kaur and Surinder Pal Kaur (respondent ) filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 as defendants No.3 and 4 in the suit and allowing them Kaur and Surinder Pal Kaur for leave to appeal in stay application which was allowed by learned Additional Session Judge Patial party Surinder Pal Kaur and Sarbjit Kaur had sufficiently arties. The lease deeds, acted their interest in subject property. Further at there was no stay TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5317-2025 by any court on the rights of the party interest in the suit. Thus, denial of leave to appeal would lead to grave injustice, especially when substantial investments have been made in validity of to be considered at the stage of final hearing of the appeal and do not defeat the right to seek leave. 8. Hence, Paramjit Kaur. 9. It is argued by learned counsel petitioner/plaintiff No.1 Patiala has wrong party, which is respondents No.3 and 4/defendants No.1 and 2 of lease deeds was 3 and 4/defendants No. 1and 2. 10. Learned counsel for party, on the other hand has rightly allowed the application for leave to appeal as it is settled law that a person who is not a party to appeal, if he is directly and substantially affected by the judgment or decree. In present case respondent possession of the suit property 11. I have heard the the record with their able assistance. 2025 (O&M) by any court on the rights of the party interest in the suit. Thus, denial of leave to appeal would lead to grave injustice, especially when substantial investments have been made in pursuance of public allotment. The validity of power of attorney and alleged collusion are factual matters to be considered at the stage of final hearing of the appeal and do not defeat the right to seek leave.” Hence, the present revision petition It is argued by learned counsel /plaintiff No.1– Parmjit Kaur that the wrongly allowed the application for leave to appeal filed by the third is against law and facts. In fact respondents No.1 and 2 No.3 and 4/defendants No.1 and 2 are acting in collusion. The factum of lease deeds was not disclosed in the written statements 3 and 4/defendants No. 1and 2. Learned counsel for caveator-respondents No.1 and 2/ on the other hand, has argued that learned Additional District has rightly allowed the application for leave to appeal as it is settled law that a person who is not a party to the suit may still be permitted to file an appeal, if he is directly and substantially affected by the judgment or decree. In case respondent Nos.1 and 2/aggrieved 3 possession of the suit property and they have direct interest in the suit property. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through h their able assistance. by any court on the rights of the parties to alienate or create third party interest in the suit. Thus, denial of leave to appeal would lead to grave injustice, especially when substantial investments have been of public allotment. The objections regarding the of attorney and alleged collusion are factual matters to be considered at the stage of final hearing of the appeal and do not present revision petition filed by petitioner/plaintiff No.1 It is argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the the learned Additional Sessions Judge, allowed the application for leave to appeal filed by the third respondents No.1 and 2-herein and are acting in collusion. The factum statements filed by respondents No. respondents No.1 and 2/aggrieved 3 has argued that learned Additional District Judge, Patiala has rightly allowed the application for leave to appeal as it is settled proposition suit may still be permitted to file an appeal, if he is directly and substantially affected by the judgment or decree. In aggrieved 3rd party being lessee are in have direct interest in the suit property. learned counsel for the parties and have gone through -4- to alienate or create third party interest in the suit. Thus, denial of leave to appeal would lead to grave injustice, especially when substantial investments have been regarding the of attorney and alleged collusion are factual matters to be considered at the stage of final hearing of the appeal and do not filed by petitioner/plaintiff No.1 – of the Additional Sessions Judge, allowed the application for leave to appeal filed by the third and are acting in collusion. The factum respondents No. aggrieved 3rd Judge, Patiala, proposition of suit may still be permitted to file an the party being lessee are in learned counsel for the parties and have gone through TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5317-2025 12. There is no dispute to the legal proposition of law that a person who is not a party to the suit may be permitted to file an appeal substantially affected by the order seen is that whether the proposed appellant/third party is an aggrieved person whose legal rights are directly been specifically pleaded by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 aggrieved persons as order dated 04.11.2024 directly affects their valuable right. It is not disputed that they have taken the p and 4/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 04.11.2024 restrains the change of nature of the property rights of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Since, the rights of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the matter cannot be adjudicated upon without hearing them have successfully Judge, Patiala that the order substantially interest in the s changing the nature of the suit property infact effectively binds respondent 1 and 2/3rd party as well intended purpose of the land are ‘aggrieved person whose rights are pre and right in challenging it. They have stay order directly impairs their rights flowing from a subsisting lease. Learned lower Appellate Court has rightly 2025 (O&M) There is no dispute to the legal proposition of law that a person who is not a party to the suit may be permitted to file an appeal substantially affected by the order, judgment or decree. The only que is that whether the proposed appellant/third party is an aggrieved person whose legal rights are directly impacted by the judgment. In the present case it has been specifically pleaded by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 grieved persons as order dated 04.11.2024 directly affects their valuable right. It is not disputed that they have taken the property on lease from respondent Nos. 3 and 4/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 during the pendency of the suit 04.11.2024 restrains the change of nature of the property rights of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – herein who are lessee in the suit property. Since, the rights of respondent Nos. 1 and 2-herein er cannot be adjudicated upon without hearing them successfully demonstrated before the Court of learned that the order substantially and directly interest in the suit property. The stay order restraining changing the nature of the suit property infact effectively binds respondent 1 and as well, because their rights as lesse intended purpose of the land are affected. Thus aggrieved person’ is not only confined to parties on record but extends to those whose rights are pre-judicially affected by the order d right in challenging it. They have locus standi stay order directly impairs their rights flowing from a subsisting lease. Learned lower Appellate Court has rightly granted such leave on being satisfied that their There is no dispute to the legal proposition of law that a person who is not a party to the suit may be permitted to file an appeal, if he is directly and judgment or decree. The only question to is that whether the proposed appellant/third party is an aggrieved person by the judgment. In the present case it has been specifically pleaded by respondent Nos. 1 and 2-herein that they are the grieved persons as order dated 04.11.2024 directly affects their valuable right. It roperty on lease from respondent Nos. 3 during the pendency of the suit. Stay order dated 04.11.2024 restrains the change of nature of the property, which directly affects who are lessee in the suit property. herein under the lease are impacted, er cannot be adjudicated upon without hearing them especially when th demonstrated before the Court of learned Additional District and directly affects their legal rights and uit property. The stay order restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the suit property infact effectively binds respondent 1 and cause their rights as lessee including enjoyment, use and . Thus, considering the fact that confined to parties on record but extends to those judicially affected by the order, they have a legitimate interest locus standi to seek leave to appeal as the stay order directly impairs their rights flowing from a subsisting lease. Learned such leave on being satisfied that their -5- There is no dispute to the legal proposition of law that a person who is if he is directly and stion to be is that whether the proposed appellant/third party is an aggrieved person by the judgment. In the present case it has that they are the grieved persons as order dated 04.11.2024 directly affects their valuable right. It roperty on lease from respondent Nos. 3 tay order dated the who are lessee in the suit property. under the lease are impacted, hey Additional District and the defendants from changing the nature of the suit property infact effectively binds respondent 1 and use and considering the fact that confined to parties on record but extends to those interest to seek leave to appeal as the stay order directly impairs their rights flowing from a subsisting lease. Learned such leave on being satisfied that their TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5317-2025 presence is necessary to interest 13. In view of the finding above 28.07.2025 (Annexure P the reply to two applications. 14. In view of the above, (Annexure P-9) and 28.07.2025 (Annexure P revision petition is dismissed accordingly. 15. Pending application(s), August 11, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) is necessary to ensure complete and e In view of the finding above, there is no illegality in the order (Annexure P-11), wherein the main case the reply to two applications. In view of the above, both the impugned orders dated 23.07.2025 9) and 28.07.2025 (Annexure P revision petition is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No effective adjudication of their legal there is no illegality in the order dated wherein the main case has been adjourned for filing both the impugned orders dated 23.07.2025 9) and 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-11) are upheld and the present if any, also stand disposed off. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No -6- their legal dated filing both the impugned orders dated 23.07.2025 11) are upheld and the present TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document