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

Share:
Health Condition and Technological Adaptations: Court Grants Bail to Elderly Cancer Patient

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.

Download Judgment

Share: