CR-4465-2026 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4465-2026 Date of decision: 09.07.2026 Sunita Rani @ Sunita Arora and others ...Pe##oners Versus Seema Rani and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. B.S. Mi)al, Advocate for the pe##oners. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present revision pe##on has been filed under Ar#cle 227 of the Cons#tu#on of India assailing the order dated 22.04.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Addi#onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, whereby the applica#on filed by the pe##oners under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking their impleadment as par#es in the pending civil suit [CS-928-2019] has been dismissed. 2. Briefly no#ced, respondent No.1-plain#ff ins#tuted the suit seeking possession of a specific por#on of the property measuring 51.33 square yards out of House No.825/B-2 on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 21.11.2018 executed by defendant No.1. During pendency of the suit, evidence of both the par#es stood concluded and the ma)er was fixed for final arguments. 3. At that stage, the present pe##oners, who are sisters of defendant No.1, moved an applica#on under Order I Rule 10 CPC claiming that they were necessary and proper par#es, as the adjudica#on in the suit would affect their alleged rights in the property. The applica#on has been dismissed by the Trial Court holding that the pe##oners are neither YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4465-2026 [2] necessary nor proper par#es and that the applica#on has been filed only to delay the proceedings. 4. Assailing the order, Learned counsel for the pe##oners contends that the pe##oners claim an independent right in the property and have already ins#tuted another civil suit challenging the sale transac#on. It is argued that any decree passed in the present suit would directly affect their civil rights and, therefore, their presence is necessary for complete and effec#ve adjudica#on of the controversy. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, 1990 (2) SCC 117; and Kartar Singh vs Jagat Singh and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 2615954. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the pe##oners and perused the record, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. 6. The scope of Order I Rule 10 CPC is well se)led. The Court is empowered to implead only such persons whose presence is necessary to effec#vely and completely adjudicate upon the ques#ons involved in the suit. A dis#nc#on has consistently been maintained between a "necessary party" and a "proper party". A necessary party is one in whose absence no effec#ve decree can be passed, whereas a proper party is one whose presence may facilitate complete adjudica#on of the issues already arising between the exis#ng par#es. The provision is not intended to enlarge the scope of the suit by introducing independent disputes or collateral controversies. 7. Equally well se)led is the principle that the plain#ff is dominus lis. Subject to the provisions of Order I Rule 10 CPC, it is for the plain#ff to choose against whom he seeks relief. A third person claiming an independent #tle cannot insist upon being impleaded merely because he apprehends that the decree may incidentally affect his interest. Such person YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4465-2026 [3] is always at liberty to establish his own independent rights in separate proceedings. 8. The suit ins#tuted by respondent No.1 is founded upon a registered sale deed dated 21.11.2018, whereby defendant No.1 allegedly transferred a specified por#on of the property to the plain#ff. The relief sought is possession of that iden#fied por#on. The adjudica#on in the suit is confined to the rights flowing from the said transac#on between the plain#ff and the vendor. The pe##oners neither claim under the plain#ff nor under the sale deed in ques#on. Their alleged claim is independent and adverse to both the plain#ff and defendant No.1. Consequently, the controversy sought to be raised by them lies outside the scope of the present proceedings. 9. The Trial Court has also no#ced that the pe##oners have already ins#tuted Civil Suit No.1168 of 2019 asser#ng their independent rights against the same par#es. Significantly, even according to the pe##oners, the release deed dated 15.10.2015, through which defendant No.1 derived #tle before execu#ng the sale deed in favour of the plain#ff, has not been challenged by them in those proceedings. Thus, their substan#ve rights are already the subject ma)er of an independent adjudica#on before the competent Court. The dismissal of the impleadment applica#on, therefore, does not leave them remediless nor does it prejudice the adjudica#on of their independent claim. 10. Another important circumstance, which cannot be ignored is the stage at which the applica#on has been filed. The evidence of both the par#es had already concluded and the ma)er was fixed for final arguments. The record further shows that shortly before filing of the present applica#on, an applica#on seeking consolida#on of the proceedings had already been dismissed. The Trial Court has recorded a categorical finding YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4465-2026 [4] that the present applica#on appears to have been moved only to delay the disposal of the suit. Such finding is based upon the chronology of events and cannot be said to be either perverse or unsupported by the record. 11. The judgments relied upon by the pe##oners are clearly dis#nguishable on facts. The present case stands on an en#rely different foo#ng, where the pe##oners seek to introduce an independent dispute regarding #tle, which is already pending before another competent Court. Therefore, the precedents relied by Ld. Counsel do not advance the case of the pe##oners. 12. The supervisory jurisdic#on under Ar#cle 227 of the Cons#tu#on is intended to ensure that subordinate Courts act within the bounds of their jurisdic#on. It is neither an appellate jurisdic#on nor does it permit this Court to subs#tute its own view merely because another view is possible. Unless the impugned order suffers from patent perversity, manifest illegality or jurisdic#onal error resul#ng in grave injus#ce, interference is unwarranted. 13. The impugned order reflects proper apprecia#on of the pleadings, the stage of the proceedings and the se)led principles governing impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court are cogent, legally sustainable and do not disclose any jurisdic#onal error warran#ng interference under Ar#cle 227 of the Cons#tu#on. 14. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision pe##on, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applica#on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 09.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document