1  2026:HHC:37497 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 399 of 2026 Decided on: 1.9.2026 Kishan Pal … Petitioner Versus Banta Ram & others …Respondents _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sunny Moudgill, Advocate (through V.C.) and Ms. Vanshika Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Tarun K. Bragta, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 6. Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl. AG with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Dy. A.G., for respondents No. 7 and 8. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner Krishan Pal has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 2  2026:HHC:37497 against the order dated 4.5.2026, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Amb, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in CMA No. 342 of 2026, filed in Civil Suit No. 450-I-14, titled as, ‘Banta Ram & others versus State of H.P. & others’. 2. By way of order dated 4.5.2026, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, for impleadment of the petitioner, as defendant, in the above titled suit. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. Necessary facts, as borne out from the plaint, annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as under: Plaintiffs Banta Ram and others have filed the suit for possession of land measuring 771.80 sq. meters, marked as ABCDEFGH, in the site plan, attached with the plaint, bearing khewat No. 719 min., Khatauni No. 987 Min, Khasra No. 2343, as entered in the Jamabandi, 3  2026:HHC:37497 for the year 2007-2008, situated in village Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. by demolishing the tin shed on boundary wall, towards western side boundary and northern side, adjoining to the pucca Gagret-Hoshiarpur road. The said suit has been filed by the plaintiffs, on the basis of ownership. 5. The said suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement, by taking preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable in the present form; the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their own acts and conduct, plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit and, as such the plaint is liable to be rejected, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands; plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit; the suit of the plaintiffs has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee; the suit is bad for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 80 CPC; the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit; and the suit is barred by limitation. 4  2026:HHC:37497 6. On merits, the suit has been contested, on the ground, that the plaintiffs were neither tenants, nor in actual cultivating possession of the suit land. It has been averred that the suit land is in possession of Education Department, through High School, Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. As per the defendants, the suit land is being used as a playground by the defendants. Entry in the revenue record is stated to be mere paper entry. Asserting their possession over the suit land, the defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. Plaintiffs have filed the replication, denying the preliminary objections, as well as, contents of the written statement, by virtue of which, the suit has been contested. 8. During pendency of the said lis, the present petitioner has moved the application for impleading him, as party in the said suit. The said application has been filed, on the ground, that the applicant has filed the suit for declaration to the effect that petitioner Krishan Pal and the proforma defendants are owners in possession 5  2026:HHC:37497 of the land measuring 3892-83 Sq. decimeters comprised in Khewat No.781 min, Khatoni No.1027 min, Khasra No.41, 42, 43, 44, 54, 932, 933, 934, 935, 4037/936, 4038/936 and 2343, as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 2012-2013, situated in Village Gagret, Tehsil Ghanari, Distt. Una (H.P.) and the revenue entry in the name of defendant No.1 and predecessor-in-interest of defendant Nos. 2 to 6 named Mastu, as non occupancy tenants, and entered mutation No. 3598, qua the proprietary rights and further sale deed, if any, in favour of defendant Nos. 7 to 18 by defendant No.1 and the predecessors-in-interest of defendant Nos.2 to 6 i.e. Mastu and mutation, if any, on the basis of sale deeds, in the name of defendant Nos. 6 to 18 are wrong, baseless, illegal, null and void. 9. It is the further case of the applicant that he has received summons from the Court on 6.11.2024, in Civil Suit No. 36 of 2014, titled as ‘Banta Ram versus State of H.P.’. Thereafter, he visited the office of his counsel and requested him to inquire about the matter and then, he 6  2026:HHC:37497 came to know about the fact that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for possession of the suit land. 10. After coming to know about the pendency of the suit, filed by the plaintiffs, the present application has been filed, on the ground, that the plaintiffs have filed present suit, by concealing the material facts, qua earlier litigation, and without impleading the applicant, as party in the present suit, and as such, they wanted to get the relief of declaration, in the absence of petitioner/applicant, which is not permissible, under the law. 11. It is the further case of the petitioner/applicant that he is necessary and proper party to the present suit, for the just adjudication of the present case, as he is having direct and substantial interest, in the litigation. 12. Lastly, a prayer has been made that the application, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, may kindly be allowed, by impleading the petitioner, as party in the present lis, so that dispute, involved in the present case, could be decided, effectively and completely. 7  2026:HHC:37497 13. When, put to notice, the application has been contested by the plaintiffs, on the ground, that in the present case, no relief has been sought, against the applicant/petitioner Krishan Pal, as such, he is neither necessary, nor proper party; and the application has been filed, at the belated stage, as the case was listed for defendant’s evidence. 14. On merits, it has been admitted that the petitioner/applicant has filed Civil Suit No. 137 of 2017, for declaration, challenging the revenue entries, in the name of Banta Ram. Asserting their ownership, over the suit land, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 15. The applicant/petitioner has filed rejoinder, re- asserting his claim, over the suit land, which he has sought, by way of separate suit. 16. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 4.5.2026, has dismissed the said application. 17. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned order, the present petition has been filed, before this Court, on the ground, that the petitioner is necessary and proper 8  2026:HHC:37497 party, for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute. 18. The findings of the learned trial Court have further been assailed, on the ground, that the learned trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It is further averred that the plaintiffs are having full knowledge that the petitioner had already filed a separate suit, qua the subject matter of the lis. Re-asserting his claim, it has been averred by the petitioner that he is not only proper party, but, necessary party, and without his presence, the disputed, involved in the present lis, cannot be effectively and completely adjudicated, by the learned trial Court. 19. Hence, a prayer has been made by Mr. Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sunny Moudgill and Ms. Vanshika Sharma, Advocates, appearing for the petitioner that the present petition may kindly be allowed. 20. Per contra, Mr.Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Tarun K. Bragta, Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 6 has prayed that the petitioner is 9  2026:HHC:37497 before this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where the scope of interference is limited and that the order can only be interfered with, by this Court, in the supervisory jurisdiction, if the same suffers from perversity. Hence, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 21. The petitioner is before this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where scope of interference by this Court is very limited. 22. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "K. Valarmathi & Ors. Versus Kumaresan”, 2025 INSC 606" has elaborately discussed the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Relevant para 9 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under: "Essence of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, it cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise. Nor can it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. For example, existence of appellate remedy under Section 96 of the Code operates as a near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227." 23. In a recent decision in "Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. Versus B. Gurappa 10  2026:HHC:37497 Naidu & Ors.”, 2026 INSC 434", the scope of interference has again been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Relevant paragraph 35 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:- "35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters is as follows: a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals. b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this. Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal." 11  2026:HHC:37497 24. In this case, certain facts are not in dispute. The plaintiffs have sought relief of possession, against the State of H.P., on the basis of their title, and the petitioner, by way of separate suit, bearing Civil Suit No. 137 of 2017, has sought declaration, qua the revenue entries, in the name of plaintiffs. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for possession, in the year, 2014, which is at the stage of defendants’s evidence, whereas, the suit of the petitioner is for declaration, qua the fact that petitioner Krishan Pal and proforma defendants, are owners in possession of the land, measuring 3892-83 Sq. decimeters comprised of Khewat No.781 min, Khatoni No.1027 min, Khasra No.41, 42, 43, 44, 54, 932, 933, 934, 935, 4037/936, 4038/936 and 2343, as entered in the Jamabandi, for the year 2012-2013, situated in Village Gagret, Tehsil Ghanari, Distt. Una (H.P.). They have also challenged the revenue entries, in the name of defendant No. 1 and predecessors-in- interest, of defendants No. 2 to 6, as non-occupancy tenants. 12  2026:HHC:37497 25. The suit of the plaintiffs is prior in time, by virtue of which, they have sought relief of possession, on the basis of their title. The plaintiffs are dominus litis and they cannot be compelled to seek relief of possession, against the petitioner. 26. Situation would have been otherwise, had the defendants, in the present case, taken the plea that they are not in possession of the suit land, and that the petitioner is in possession of the same. 27. The relief of declaration is a right in personam and not a right in rem. As such, merely because the plaintiffs are impleaded as defendants in the aforesaid suit, filed by the petitioner, for declaration, the petitioner does not become a necessary and proper party, for the adjudication of the lis, which is founded, upon the title of the plaintiffs, as they have sought the relief of possession from the defendants. 28. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned trial 13  2026:HHC:37497 Court. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 29. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present application. (Virender Singh) 1.9.2026 Judge Kalpana