Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
UKHC010111482026
2026:UHC:5550 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s
order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMS/1972/2026
Jogeshwar Prasad --Petitioner Versus Lakhi Ram --Respondent
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1. Mr. Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. In a suit for permanent injunction filed by petitioners, respondent no. 2 filed an application, seeking impleadment, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The said application was allowed by the trial court. Revision filed by petitioner against trial court’s order has been dismissed. Challenging these two orders, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent no. 2 is neither necessary nor proper party, therefore, her application for impleadment could not have been allowed.
4. The impleadment application is on record as annexure 2 to the writ petition, wherein respondent no. 2 has alleged that it is the petitioners (plaintiffs in the suit), who have encroached upon the passage which leads to the house of respondent no. 2, by constructing a tin structure which has obstructed the passage available to her.
UKHC010111482026
2026:UHC:5550
5. In their suit, petitioners had alleged that respondent no. 1 is trying to encroach upon the land belonging to petitioners for making an alternate passage to his property. Thus, petitioners alleged that it is defendant no. 1, who is trying to encroach upon their land, while the applicant in impleadment application has alleged that it is the petitioners who have encroached the passage which leads to her property.
6. Since there are allegations and counter allegations, therefore, presence of respondent no. 2 was necessary before the trial court. Thus, the order passed by trial court, whereby prayer for impleadment made by respondent no. 2 was allowed, calls for no interference. For the same reason, the order passed by revisional court cannot be disturbed.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
08.07.2026 Aswal
NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1 369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F461 0C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.07.08 06:59:42 -07'00'