Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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