Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

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.

Latest Legal News