IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 126 CR-3628-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision.: 30.04.2026 Pista Devi …..Pe--oner Vs. Manoj Kumar and Another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present revision peon has been preferred by the peoner–applicant assailing the order dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pataudi, whereby her applicaon under Order I Rule 10 read with Secon 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking impleadment in Civil Suit No. 390 of 2025 tled ‘Surender Kumar vs Manoj Kumar’ as a co-defendant has been dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent–plainff instuted a suit for permanent injuncon restraining the defendant from raising construcon, altering the nature of the suit property, and creang third party rights therein. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the present peoner moved an applicaon claiming herself to be owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 13.05.2008 and sought impleadment as a necessary party. It was further alleged that the suit is collusive and intended to defeat her rights. Reliance was also placed upon a police complaint dated 13.08.2025 to assert possession. 4. The applicaon was opposed by the plainff on the ground that the peoner had already relinquished her rights in the suit property pursuant to a compromise decree dated 01.02.2013, and therefore, she NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.30 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3628-2026 (O&M) had no subsisng right, tle or interest. It was further contended that the suit being one for injuncon between co-owners, the peoner is neither a necessary nor a proper party. 5. The learned trial Court, a:er considering the rival submissions and material on record, dismissed the applicaon holding that the peoner had no subsisng right in the property and her impleadment would unnecessarily convert the suit into a tle dispute. 6. Assailing the above order, Learned counsel for the peoner contends that the peoner is in possession of the suit property and her presence is essenal for complete adjudicaon of the dispute. It is argued that non-impleadment would result in mulplicity of proceedings and serious prejudice to her rights. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the peoner and perused the paper-book. 8. The scope of interference in revisional jurisdicon is limited. Unless the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, jurisdiconal error, or material irregularity, interference is not warranted. 9. At the outset, it is not disputed that the peoner had executed a compromise, which culminated into a decree dated 01.02.2013, whereby her rights in the suit property stood relinquished. The said decree has neither been challenged nor set aside. Once the peoner has divested herself of her rights through a judicial decree, her reliance on an earlier sale deed of 2008 is clearly misconceived. 10. The contenon regarding possession based upon a police complaint is equally untenable. A police complaint is not a document of tle and cannot confer or establish legal rights in immovable property. The learned trial Court has rightly held that such material cannot override a binding judicial decree. 11. Further, the principles governing impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC are well se?led. A party can be added only if it is a necessary Page No. 2 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.30 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3628-2026 (O&M) or proper party for effecve adjudicaon of the issues involved. In a suit for injuncon between co-owners, the controversy is limited to possession and alleged interference. A third party claiming independent tle cannot be permi?ed to convert such proceedings into a complex tle dispute. 12. Equally, the doctrine of dominus lis entles the plainff to choose the pares against whom he seeks relief. A stranger cannot insist on being impleaded merely on the basis of a disputed claim, parcularly when such claim stands eclipsed by an admi?ed decree. 13. In the present case, no effecve decree in the suit would affect any legally subsisng right of the peoner. Therefore, she is neither a necessary nor a proper party. The reasoning recorded by the learned trial Court is sound, well-founded, and in consonance with se?led legal principles. No jurisdiconal error or perversity is demonstrated. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present revision peon. The impugned order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the learned trial Court does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdicon. 15. Accordingly, the revision peon is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that any observaons made herein shall not affect the merits of any independent proceedings, if iniated by the peoner in accordance with law. All the miscellaneous applicaon(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 30, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 3 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.30 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document