Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Son's Right to Be Impleaded in Property Dispute: Delay Not a Valid Ground - Rules High Court"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal precedent, the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a judgment on September 29, 2023, affirming the right of a son to be impleaded as a party in a property dispute, even when the construction in question was carried out by him. The case, which was filed as a Civil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenged an order by the Trial Court to allow the impleadment of the son as defendant no.2 in a lawsuit for permanent injunction.

The plaintiff had initiated the lawsuit against the defendant, claiming that construction was taking place near his property, causing harm and seeking a mandatory injunction to remove it. The defendant, in his written statement, contended that he had no involvement in the construction, and it was carried out by his son.

The plaintiff subsequently filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to implead the son as defendant no.2, arguing that the property was owned by the son as per the defendant's own admission in his written statement.

The defendant opposed the application, asserting that it was time-barred and aimed at delaying the proceedings. However, the High Court, in its observation, emphasized the familial connection between the father and son and noted that in their society, a son and father are not considered separate entities.

The judgment stated, "In a society where a son and father are not separate entities, and the son is the owner and constructor of the suit property, the son is a necessary party to the suit. Delay is not a valid ground to deny impleadment."

In the final disposition, the High Court upheld the Trial Court's order, allowing the son to be impleaded as defendant no.2 in the lawsuit. The Civil Revision filed challenging this order was found to be without merit and was dismissed.

The judgment serves as a crucial legal precedent in cases where property disputes involve family members and highlights the importance of considering familial relationships when determining party impleadment.

This landmark decision clarifies that familial connections and property ownership are significant factors in deciding impleadment, emphasizing the principle that family members are integral parties to property disputes.

Date of Decision: 29 September 2023

Dr. Bijender @ Vijender Kumar  vs Mehar Singh and another 

 

Latest Legal News