IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 147 CR-5247-2026 Date of Decision.:20.08.2026 Santosh Kumari @ Santosh …..Pe00oner Vs. Darshan Vats and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The peoner has approached this Court under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India assailing order dated 12.05.2026 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal, whereby the applicaon filed by the plainff under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, coupled with the prayer for amendment of the plaint, has been allowed and the Manager, Punjab Naonal Bank, Branch Rangpuri, New Delhi, has been impleaded as defendant No.3. 2. The suit has been filed seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 13.08.2018 in respect of the suit property, with an alternave prayer for recovery of ₹30,00,000/- and permanent injuncon. The plainff sought impleadment of the Bank on the ground that, from the wri:en statement filed by defendant No.1, it came to know that defendant No.2 had obtained a cash-credit facility from the Bank in the year 2015; that the suit property had been given as security; that the account was subsequently declared NPA; that possession of the property was taken by the Bank and the property was therea=er auconed. The plainff asserted NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.08.21 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5247-2026 that the Bank had knowledge of the agreements to sell and sought to incorporate consequenal pleadings challenging the acon of the Bank in respect of the suit property. 3. Learned counsel for the peoner has argued that the Bank is a stranger to the agreement to sell; that the loan transacon is anterior to the alleged agreement; that the proposed amendment would materially alter the nature of the suit; and that the plainff cannot, by way of amendment, introduce a new dispute concerning the Bank's alleged aucon proceedings. 4. There is no dispute with the proposion that in a suit for specific performance a stranger cannot be impleaded merely because he claims some interest in the property. The test under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, however, is whether the proposed party is a necessary or proper party whose presence would enable the Court to effecvely and completely adjudicate the controversy. The Supreme Court in Mumbai Interna onal Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Conven on Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 417, has explained that a proper party is one whose presence enables complete, effecve and adequate adjudicaon of the ma:ers in dispute. 5. In the present case, the plainff is not seeking impleadment of the Bank merely on account of its having an interest in the suit property. The plainff specifically proposes to challenge the Bank's alleged acon concerning the very property, which is the subject ma:er of the suit and seeks to plead that such acon is not binding upon its rights under the agreement to sell. The Bank would, therefore, have a direct interest in the adjudicaon of the controversy sought to be raised by the plainff. Its presence would facilitate complete and effecve adjudicaon of the dispute and would also avoid the possibility of parallel proceedings concerning the same property. 6. The contenon that the Bank's rights arose prior to the Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.08.21 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5247-2026 agreement to sell does not, at this stage, jusfy its exclusion from the proceedings. The priority and legal effect of the Bank's security, the plainff's alleged agreements, the Bank's knowledge thereof and the validity or otherwise of the aucon proceedings are ma:ers going to the merits of the respecve claims. No opinion on those quesons is warranted while considering an applicaon under Order I Rule 10 CPC. 7. As regards the amendment, the proposed pleadings are consequenal to the impleadment of the Bank and relate to the same suit property and the plainff's asserted rights arising out of the agreement to sell. The amendment cannot, therefore, at this stage, be said to introduce a wholly foreign cause of acon. The governing consideraon under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is whether the amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy between the pares. The Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corpora on of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 1, has reiterated that amendments necessary for determining the real controversy should ordinarily be permi:ed, subject to absence of injusce or irremediable prejudice. 8. It is also relevant that the suit is sll at an inial stage. The applicaon was moved a=er the plainff claimed to have acquired knowledge of the Bank's involvement from the wri:en statement of defendant No.1, and the wri:en statement of defendant No.2 was yet to be filed. The learned Trial Court was, therefore, jusfied in taking into consideraon the stage of the proceedings while exercising its discreon. 9. At this stage, this Court is not required to determine whether the allegaons sought to be incorporated by amendment are ulmately correct. The peoner shall have full opportunity to controvert those allegaons a=er the amended plaint is served and to raise all available pleas, including those relang to limitaon, priority of the Bank's security, validity of the alleged agreements, maintainability of the relief against the Page No. 3 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.08.21 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5247-2026 Bank and the legality of the aucon proceedings. 10. The order passed by the learned Trial Court, therefore, does not suffer from any jurisdiconal error, perversity or material irregularity warranng interference under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India. 11. Accordingly, the revision peon is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that nothing contained in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the plainff's claim, the validity or priority of the Bank's security interest, the legality of the aucon proceedings, the alleged knowledge or collusion of the Bank, or the plainff's ulmate entlement to specific performance. All such quesons are le= open to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. 12. Pending applicaon(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE August 20, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 4 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.08.21 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document