IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 59 of 2026 Date of Decision: 20.04.2026 Salochana Devi ...Petitioner. Versus Biri Singh & others ...Respondents. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sanket Sankhyan, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 15. Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 16 to 18. Mr. Rajesh Prakash, Advocate, for respondent No.19. __________________________________________________ Romesh Verma , Judge (oral) The present petition arises out of the impugned order dated 02.07.2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, District Bilaspur, H.P., whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the application as filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, for restraining the defendants from interfering, occupying, raising construction, digging, altering and constructing a road over the land, comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 10/10, Khasra No. 35, measuring 0-15 bighas, and Khewat/Khatauni No. 8/8, Khasra Nos. 4, 15, 16, 18, and 19 (Kita-5), measuring 8-5 bighas, situated in Village Ghwandal, Pargana Kot-Kehloor, Tehsil Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in any manner whatsoever, either by themselves or through their agents, servants, representatives, family members, or labourers. 3. It has been stated in the plaint that the defendants are very powerful and forceful persons, and they have no regard for the law. They have openly threatened the plaintiff that they would construct the road up to the house of the Pradhan/ concerned Panchayat. 4. The defendants are adamant about raising construction forcibly on the suit land, which is in the possession of the plaintiff. The land is still joint and has not yet been duly partitioned. Therefore, under such circumstances, the suit for 3 permanent prohibitory injunction was filed against the defendants to restrain them from raising any construction, digging, altering the nature of the land, and constructing a road over the suit land. 5. Defendants No. 1 to 4 and 5 to 13, in para 5 of the preliminary objections, have specifically admitted that the road was constructed up to the suit land in the year 2016-17 by the Government under the 14th Finance Commission, on the demand of the residents of Village Ghwandal. 6. The plaintiff/petitioner, after the framing of issues, filed an application under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC to implead the DC Bilaspur, BDO Swarghat, DPO Bilaspur, and the Panchayat Secretary, G.P. Ghwandal, in the present suit. 7. It has been stated in the application that the defendants, in collusion with each other and to serve their personal motives, have utilized government funds to construct a road leading to the house of Defendant No. 2 through the land of the plaintiff, which has not yet been partitioned. Therefore, the DC Bilaspur, BDO Swarghat, DPO Bilaspur, and Panchayat Secretary, G.P. Ghwandal are necessary 4 parties to be arrayed as defendants for the proper adjudication of the case. 8. The said application was duly resisted by the present respondents, and all the averments and allegations levelled in the application were refuted. 9. The learned Trial Court, vide its order dated 02.07.2025, dismissed the application. 10. It is contended by Mr. Naresh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in view of the averments made in para 5 of the written statement, the DC Bilaspur, BDO Sawarghat, DPO Bilaspur, and Panchayat Secretary, G.P. Ghwandal are necessary parties to be arrayed as defendants. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is erroneous and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Sanket Sankhayan, learned counsel for the defendants, defended the impugned order and submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction and there is no infirmity in the same. Consequently, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5 13. The plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction before the learned Trial Court. As per the averments made in the plaint, it has been stated that the defendants started interfering with the suit land while constructing an illegal road, with the help of other co-sharers, by engaging a JCB. This act was resisted by the plaintiff, who is a rustic, old and widow lady. Although a request was made to the defendants to stop the construction, they failed to accede to the said request. 14. The plaintiff has sought a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the suit land by raising construction, digging, or otherwise altering it, including the construction of a road over the suit land. 15. In the written statement, the defendants have admitted that, on the demand of the villagers, the road was constructed by the Government under the 14th Finance Commission. This averment in the written statement is very material for the adjudication of the present application. 16. By means of the present application, the petitioner intends to array the DC Bilaspur, BDO Sawarghat, DPO 6 Bilaspur, and the Panchayat Secretary, G.P. Ghwandal as party defendants. The pleadings placed on record reveal that the road, which stands constructed by the Government under the 14th Finance Commission, is the subject matter of the dispute in the present case. 17. The provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC reads as follows: “10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.— (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. (3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. (4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended.—Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant (5) Subject to the provisions of the 1 [Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (XV of 1877)], section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons.” 7 18. The provisions clearly envisage that the Court, at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, may order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. 19. The government officials as mentioned in the application, namely, the DC Bilaspur, BDO Sawarghat, and DPO Bilaspur, are necessary parties for the better adjudication and determination of the present suit. The impleadment of the said persons as party defendants will not cause any prejudice to the respondents/defendants in any manner, rather, it will help the Court to determine the points in controversy and to adjudicate the case in hand. 20. Consequently, after setting aside the impugned order, the application is partly allowed and the DC Bilaspur, BDO Sawarghat, and DPO Bilaspur are arrayed as party 8 defendants in the suit filed by the present petitioner. As far as the impleadment of the Panchayat Secretary, G.P. Ghwandal is concerned, the prayer of the present petitioner is declined. This Court has been informed that the issues in the present case have been framed after the filing of the application. The petitioner has made out a case for interference in the present proceedings. 21. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the application filed by the present petitioner under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC is partly accepted, in the aforesaid terms. 22. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge April 20, 2026 (Nisha)