CR-5152-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 163 CR-5152-2026 Date of decision : 15.07.2026 Shiv Kumar ...... Petitioner V/S Yudhishter and Ors. ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. P.S.Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. **** AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner/plaintiff Shiv Kumar filed present civil revision against impugned order dated 28.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ellenabad, District Sirsa whereby the application filed by respondent No.6 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as defendant No.6 has been allowed, alleging the order as illegal, unjust and arbitrary. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff argued that Shiv Kumar filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.1 from alienating/transferring/selling/mortgaging or creating any charge or lien over any specific killa number/portion or changing the nature of suit property and further restraining defendants No.2 to 5 from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the land measuring 159 kanals, 13 marlas situated in Village Firozabad, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2022-23 as detailed in the head note of the plaint (Annexure P-2). SUNIL DEVI 2026.07.17 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5152-2026 -2- It is pointed out that notice was issued to the defendants. The defendant No.1 put in appearance whereas the defendants No.2 to 5 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P-3). The parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the suit property in all respects. In violation of the aforesaid order, defendant No.1 executed Release Deed No.2835 dated 08.10.2025 in favour of Parvesh Kamboj/respondent No.6. On that basis, said Parvesh Kamboj filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (Annexure P-4) for impleading him as one of the defendants. The application was contested by filing reply (Annexure P-5). The learned trial Court allowed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by passing impugned order dated 28.04.2026 (Annexure P-1). It is submitted that Yudhishter (defendant No.1) violated the status quo order passed by the trial Court dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P-3) and executed the Release Deed during the pendency of aforesaid civil suit. Regarding violation of status quo order dated 03.04.2025, contempt application is already filed. In the aforesaid civil suit, applicant Parvesh Kamboj cannot be impleaded as one of the defendant. The application was allowed without any justification. Therefore, impugned order dated 28.04.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ellenabad, District Sirsa (Annexure P-1) deserves to be set aside by accepting the present civil revision. 3. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel representing petitioner/plaintiff. As per plaint (Annexure P-2), Shiv Kumar filed suit for permanent injunction against Yudhishter (defendant No.1) from alienating, transferring or creating any charge or lien over specific killa number or from changing the nature of suit land which is a joint holding of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and further restraining defendants No.2 to 5 from SUNIL DEVI 2026.07.17 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5152-2026 -3- interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff as detailed in the head note of the plaint. As per record, status quo order was passed by learned trial Court on 03.04.2025 (Annexure P-3), however despite status quo order passed by the court, defendant No.1 Yudhishter executed Release Deed No.2835 dated 08.10.2025 in favour of Parvesh Kamboj son of Udeek Chand/defendant No.2. Admittedly, contempt application is already filed which is pending before the court concerned. Thereafter, Parvesh Kamboj filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as defendant No.6 on the basis of aforesaid release deed. On the basis of release deed, applicant Parvesh Kamboj has stepped into the shoes of defendant No.1. The learned trial Court after appreciating the facts and surrounding circumstances of the present case deem it appropriate to implead the applicant as defendant No.6. From the pleadings of the petitioner/plaintiff, it is evident that the suit land is joint. Partition proceedings are also going on. Therefore, by impleading Parvesh Kamboj as defendant No.6, the petitioner/plaintiff will not suffer any prejudice. In the light of this, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 28.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ellenabad, District Sirsa and the same is accordingly upheld. The civil revision filed by petitioner/plaintiff is accordingly declined. 4. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well. (AMARJOT BHATTI ) JUDGE 15.07.2026. Sunil Devi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No SUNIL DEVI 2026.07.17 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document