2026:HHC:41192 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.  : 303 of 2019 Decided on    : 22.09.2026 Chander Kala & Ors. …Petitioners Versus Harmesh Dutt & Ors. …Respondents The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr.   Karan   Singh   Kanwar, Senior   Advocate,   with   Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Advocate, for proposed LRs of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 proceeded ex­parte. Ms. Kiran Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Name   of   respondent   No.   4, stands deleted. Mr.   Ashok   Sood,   Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajat Rana, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:41192 dated 21.05.2019, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil   Judge,   Nahan,   District   Sirmaur,   H.P.   (hereinafter referred   to   as   ‘the   learned   trial   Court’),   in   CMA   No. 342/6/2019,   in   Civil   Suit   No.   90/1   of   2014,   titled   as “Harmesh Dutt Vs Bhagat Ram & Ors.”. 2. By way of order dated 21.05.2019, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, moved by the present petitioners, in the above titled suit. 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,  under  Article  227 of  the Constitution  of  India, before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:­ 4.1 Plaintiff   Harmesh   Dutt   has   filed   a   suit   for possession   and   permanent   injunction,   against   the defendants, on the ground, that the plaintiff is one of the co­sharer   in   possession   of   the   land   bearing Khata/Khatauni No. 41min/70min, Khasra No. 117, plots 1, measuring 27 bighas 19 bishwas, situated at revenue 3 2026:HHC:41192 Village Saroga Tikker, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’). 4.2 According   to   the   plaintiff,   defendants   are stranger to the suit land and they have no right, title and interest to occupy any portion of the suit land, dispossess the plaintiff forcibly and to change the nature or user of the suit   land   by   way   of   construction   of   telecommunication tower,   to   install   electricity   transformer,   electricity generator, construct motor­able road from Nahan Shimla State Highway leading to their telecommunication towers. 4.3 It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants   in   the   year   2009,   had   constructed telecommunication   towers   on   the   land   comprised   in Khasra No. 117/1 measuring 13 bishwas out of the total suit land.  On 31.08.2012, they have also threatened that they will change the nature of the remaining suit land and construct   motor­able   road   from   Nahan   Shimla   State Highway leading to their telecommunication towers on the same by dispossessing the plaintiff. 4.4 According to the plaintiff, he has filed a Civil Suit No. 88/1 of 2012, titled as ‘Harmesh Dutt Vs Bhagat Ram etc.’, before the learned Court, but on 12.09.2013, the 4 2026:HHC:41192 same was withdrawn, with liberty to file fresh on the same cause of action. 4.5 On the basis of above facts, the plaintiff has sought the following relief:­ “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that:­ (i) a   decree   of   possession   in   respect   of   the   land comprised   of   Khasra   No.   117/1,   measuring   thirteen bishwas situated at revenue village Saroga Tikker, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., as per the certified copy of Jamabandi for the year of 2008­09, the defendants be directed   to   hand   over   the   possession   of   the   same,   be passed   in   favour   of   the   plaintiff   and   against   the defendants with cost of the suit. (ii) a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing interference, damage to the suit land,   dispossessing   the  plaintiff,   changing  the  nature/ user, raising any type of construction of motor road by occupying   any   portion   of   the   suit   land,   comprised   in Khasra   Nos. 117/2,   plots   1   measuring   27   Bighas   6 Bishwas situated at revenue Village Saroga Tikker, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour H.P., as per the certified copy of Jamabandi   for   the   year   of   2008­09   either   through themselves, through their officials, contractors or through any other manner whatsoever may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” 5. The   said   suit   has   been   contested   by   the defendants, by filing the written statement. 6. In the said lis, the applicants have moved the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, to implead them as party, in the above titled suit, on the ground, that the plaintiff by concealing the material and true facts, from the Court   has   filed   the   suit   for   possession   and   permanent prohibitory injunction, qua the suit land. Reasserting the fact that the plaintiff earlier filed the similar suit against 5 2026:HHC:41192 the   applicants,   on   10.09.2012,   claiming   the   same   relief and   the   said   suit   was   dismissed   as   withdrawn   on 12.09.2013,   and   now   the   suit   has   been   filed,   without impleading them, as party. Asserting the fact that they are also   right   holders/co­sharers   in   possession   of   the   suit land, as such, they are affected persons/necessary parties, for the adjudication of the case. 7. This   application   has   been   contested   by   the plaintiff,   by   taking   preliminary   objections   that   the application is not maintainable, no cause of action has accrued against the applicants and the applicants have not approached with clean hands. 8. On merits, filing of the earlier suit has not been disputed. But,   according   to   them,   the   same   has   been withdrawn, with liberty to file fresh, on the same cause of action. It is his further case that no relief has been sought against   the   applicants,   as   such,   they   have   not   been arrayed as party, in the present litigation. On the basis of above   facts,   a   prayer   has   been   made   to   dismiss   the application. 9. The   learned   trial   Court,   vide   order   dated 21.05.2019, has dismissed the application, mainly on the 6 2026:HHC:41192 ground that the applicants cannot be impleaded as party in the   lis,   by   ignoring   the   wishes   of   the   plaintiff   and   the plaintiff being a dominus litus and as such, it is for him to choose against whom, he has to contest the suit. Apart from this, it has been held that applicants are not proper party, in the present case. 10. These findings have been assailed, before this Court. 11. Perusal   of   the   record   shows   that   plaintiff Harmesh   Dutt,   has   earlier   filed   a   suit   for   permanent prohibitory injunction and decree for mandatory injunction qua   the   land   comprised   in   Khata/Khatauni   No. 41min/70min, Khasra No. 117 measuring 27.19 bighas, situated at Mauza Saroga Tikkar, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., against Bhagat Ram, Bir Singh, Chander Kala   and   General   Manager   BSNL. The   said   suit   was dismissed   as   withdrawn,   on   12.09.2013,   on   account   of some formal defect. 12. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed for decree   of   possession   in   respect   of   Khasra   No.   117/1, measuring   13   bishwas   and   permanent   prohibitory injunction   qua   remaining   portion   of   the   land   bearing 7 2026:HHC:41192 Khasra No. 117/2 measuring 27 bighas 6 bishwas. The filing of the earlier suit bearing Civil Suit No. 88/1/2012, titled as Harmesh Dutt Vs Bhagat Ram & Ors., has also been pleaded in para 4 of the application. 13. When the liberty has been given to the plaintiff to   file   the   suit   on   same   cause   of   action,   then   on   the principle of dominus litus he cannot be permitted to choose the defendants. 14. To the considered opinion of this Court, when the earlier suit was filed against the applicants, then not impleading in the subsequent suit, which has been filed, on   the   basis   of   permission   granted   by   the   Court   is sufficient to allow the application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, as according to the documents, which is Fard Malkaan Shamlat, name of applicant No. 2 Biru Ram, has been recorded in the said document. The applicants would be affected by the decree, which, has been sought by the plaintiff, in the present case, as such, they are not only proper parties, but necessary parties, being co­sharer, as in the earlier suit, specific allegations were leveled against defendants No. 1 to 3/applicants. 8 2026:HHC:41192 15. Consequently, the order under challenge is set aside, by allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC and the applicants are ordered to be impleaded as defendants   No.   6   to   8,   in   the   present   lis. Ordered accordingly. 16. 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. 17. The   parties   to   the   lis   are   directed   to   appear before the learned trial Court on 05.10.2026, at 10:00 am. 18. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. 19. Record be sent back, forthwith. (Virender Singh) Judge 22nd September, 2026 (Pramod Kumar)