Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:HHC:39622 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. : 393 of 2020 Decided on : 14.09.2026 Smt. Sapna Chauhan & Ors. …Petitioners Versus Rajan Jain (deceased) through LRs & Ors. …Respondents The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. O.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Respondents No. 1 and 2 are stated to have expired. None for respondent No. 3. Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.
4. Mr. Rahul Mahajan & Mr. Arhant Mahajan, Advocates, for respondents No. 5 and 6.
Virender Singh, Judge
(Oral) Petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 05.08.2019, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 1/1 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2026:HHC:39622 of 2017, titled as “Sapna Chauhan and others Versus Rajan Jain and others”.
2. By way of order dated 05.08.2019, the application of the petitioner, for impleading respondents No. 5 and 6, as defendants in the above titled suit, has been dismissed.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court.
4.
Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition before this Court, as borne out from the documents annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as under: 4.1 Plaintiffs have filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, as well as, mandatory injunction, against the defendants, on the ground that the subject matter of the lis is the open corridor/common passage having dimension of 4.5 meters wide and other open corridor/common passage having dimension of 3.45 meters wide, situated on ground floor (Mall Road level floor) of the building known as Chanakya Complex, situated at The Mall Road Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P.,
3 2026:HHC:39622 starting from Mall Road Solan, as shown in the site plan, existing over a portion of the land, now comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 190/220, Khasra Nos. 608, 833/603, 1029/843/607, 1031/844/607, 846/607, Kita 5, measuring 513 Sq.meters, situated in Mauza Kather Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’). 4.2 According to the plaintiffs, defendants No. 1 to 3 are owners of the suit land. They have constructed a five storeyed building over the suit land, known as Chanakya Complex. After the construction of the said building, defendants No. 1 to 3 had sold eight shops on the ground floor of the building to the proforma defendant through sale deed dated 10.09.2010, duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Solan at Registration No. 1032/2010, dated
10.09.2020. While selling the eight shops to proforma defendant, defendants No. 1 to 3 had handed over the actual, vacant and physical possession of the said shops, along with right of use of common passage, towards shops as shown in the site plan. 4.3 As per clause No. 5, of the registered sale deed, dated 10.09.2010, defendants No. 1 to 3 have transferred,
4 2026:HHC:39622 sold, conveyed, assigned the above said shops along with all rights therein and thereto. Thereafter, the proforma defendant had started selling shops to different persons and further sale of the shops had taken place. Through sale deed dated 09.11.2012, the proforma defendant had sold shop No. 1 left side (front shop while entering in the above said shopping complex/building) to plaintiff No. 1 and thereafter, she started the business of Beauty Parlour, in the said shop.
Vide sale deed ated 25.06.2014, plaintiff No. 2 had also purchased shop No. 1, right side of the building, from Vinod Kumar, who, in turn, had purchased the same from proforma defendant, through sale deed dated 25.10.2013. 4.4 It is their further case that on 05.10.2015, a sale deed was executed in favour of plaintiff No. 3, qua shop No. 4 and he purchased the same from Amit Narula through his General Power of Attorney Deepika Verma. Said Amit Narula has purchased the same from proforma defendant, vide sale deed dated 08.11.2013. 4.5 According to the plaintiffs, after selling the above shops, defendants are now stranger to the suit land and as such, they have no right, title and interest. 5 2026:HHC:39622 Thereafter, on 28.12.2016, defendants No. 1 and 2, along with some other person came to the suit land and started constructing their sheds over the suit land, in a totally wrong, illegal and unauthorized manner. As such, the suit has been filed for the relief as mentioned in the plaint. 5. This suit has been contested by defendants No. 1 to 4, by filing written statement, taking preliminary objections that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable, the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit due to their own acts, conduct and acquiescence and suit is filed without any cause of action. 5.1 On merits, factual position, as mentioned in paras 1 and 2 of the plaint, has not been disputed. It has been admitted that defendants No. 1 to 3, have handed over the shops to proforma defendant, through sale deed. However, it is specifically denied that the common passage starting from shop No. 4 on the straight line upto the end of the passage starting from the Mall Road is kept vacant and has been provided as a common passage to the proforma defendant, at the spot.
5.2 According to them, the plaintiffs are distorting the facts by claiming passage behind the straight line of
6 2026:HHC:39622 the passage starting from shop No. 4. On the basis of above facts, they have sought the dismissal of the suit. 6. During the pendency of the lis, the plaintiffs have moved the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C., for impleading Smt. Alka Verma w/o Ashwani Kumar Verma and Ms. Alisha D/o Ashwani Kumar Verma, as defendants No. 5 and 6, in the present lis. 7. The said application has been moved on the ground that in the month of May, 2018, the plaintiffs came to know about the fact that defendants No. 1 to 3 and proforma defendant had executed a sale deed dated 30.12.2016, duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Solan at Registration No. 2667/2016, on 30.12.2016, in favour of Alka Verma and Ms. Alisha, both residents of House No. 47, PhaseI, Housing Board Colony Saproon Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. and by way of said sale deed, defendants have sold the open area of common passage illegally converted into built up structure (room) having an area of 9.28 Sq.meters, to the above said purchaser. On the basis of above facts, it has been pleaded that above two persons may kindly be impleaded
7 2026:HHC:39622 as defendants No. 5 and 6, in the present case, as they are not only the proper party, but necessary party to decide the controversy involved in the present lis. 8. This application has been contested by defendants No. 1 to 4, by denying the assertions, as made in the application. 9. The proposed defendants have also filed the reply, in which, they have admitted that sale deed dated 30.12.2016, No. 2667/2016, was registered in their favour, but, have denied that the defendants have sold the open area of common passage illegally converted into builtup structure having area of 9.28 Sq.meters, in their favour.
On the basis of above facts, they have asserted that application may kindly be dismissed. 10. Learned trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, vide order dated 05.08.2019, on the ground that the proposed defendants are not directly interfering in the suit land, as such, application under consideration has been dismissed. 11. The said order has been assailed before this Court, by way of the instant proceedings. 8 2026:HHC:39622
12. In this case, it has not been disputed that during the pendency of the lis, defendants No. 1 to 4 had sold the portion of the subject matter of the lis to the proposed defendants No. 5 and 6, as this fact has been admitted by them in their reply. Considering the allegations as contained in the plaint, according to which, the defendants have illegally constructed a shed over a portion of the suit land, in para 10 of the application and according to the contents of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., defendants No. 1 to 4, had sold the said area to proposed defendants No. 5 and 6, in such situation, the learned trial Court has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction, vested in it, by dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., as the impleadment has been sought on the basis of the subsequent events, which, had taken place during the pendency of the lis. 13. In view of the stand taken by the proposed defendants No. 5 and 6, the above two persons are not only proper party, but necessary party, for the just adjudication of the case, pending before the learned trial Court. 14. Considering the said fact, order dated 05.08.2019, passed by learned trial Court, does not
9 2026:HHC:39622 sustain in the judicial scrutiny by this Court, as the same falls within the definition of ‘perverse findings’.
Consequently, the petition is allowed and order passed by the learned trial Court, dated 05.08.2019, is set aside. Consequently, application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., is allowed and proposed defendants No. 5 and 6 are ordered to be impleaded as defendants No. 5 and 6, in the present case. 15. 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 petition. 16. The parties to the lis are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 28.09.2026, at 10:00 am. 17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s)
disposed of.
(Virender Singh) 14th September, 2026 Judge (Pramod Kumar)