Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

No Collusion Found, Petitioner Not a Necessary Party: High Court Upholds Dismissal of Plea for Impleadment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a revision petition challenging an earlier order that refused the impleadment of Hari Ram as a defendant in a suit concerning an alleged encroachment. The bench, led by Justice Alka Sarin, delivered the judgment on February 13, 2024, underlining the principles governing the impleadment of parties in civil litigation.

Legal Point of the Judgment: The core legal issue addressed by the High Court centered on the application of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, concerning the impleadment of parties in a lawsuit. The petitioner, Hari Ram, sought to challenge an interim injunction that restrained the demolition of an alleged encroachment and his non-impleadment in the suit.

Facts and Issues: Hari Ram's petition arose from a suit filed by Sitaram, alleging encroachment and challenging a notice under Section 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. Hari Ram claimed his involvement was crucial in the case, alleging collusion between Sitaram and the Municipal Committee, Mahendergarh. The Trial Court had dismissed his plea for impleadment, prompting the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Court's Assessment: Justice Sarin meticulously analyzed the petitioner's arguments. The Court found no evidence suggesting collusion between Sitaram and the Municipal Committee. It was emphasized that "the Municipal Committee, being a statutory body, would contest the suit to its logical end and would assist the Trial Court in proper adjudication." The Court affirmed that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit, as the issues could be adequately represented and contested by the existing parties.

Decision: Concluding that the revision petition lacked merit, the High Court dismissed it, stating, "There is no reason for this Court to conclude that there has been any connivance between the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and the defendant-respondent Nos.2 and 3." The Court also disposed of any pending applications related to the case.

Date of Decision: 13.02.2024

Hari Ram vs. Sitaram & Ors.

Similar News