***

AMARJOT BHATTI, J. –

Petitioner/defendant No. 1 Kulwinder Kumar has filed civil revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) in Civil Suit CIS No. 283 of 2021 dated 26.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) titled “Jaswinder Kumari Vs. Kulwinder Kumar and others” passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara, whereby application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading other co-owners in joint Khasra numbers has been wrongly allowed.

2. Learned counsel representing petitioner/defendant No. 1 referred to plaint (Annexure P-1) vide which Jaswinder Kumari-respondent/plaintiff filed suit for separate possession of joint property by way of partition by meets and bounds bearing House No. 205-206, near JCT Mill, Greater Kailash, Phagwara, District Kapurthala, shown red in site plan with boundaries and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their attorneys, nominees etc. from alienating or creating any type of charge over the suit property. Said civil suit was contested by petitioner/defendant No. 1 by filing written statement (Annexure P-2). Case was pending for plaintiff’s evidence, when respondent/plaintiff filed application (Annexure P-3) under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading all co-sharers in joint Khasra numbers as per Jamabandi for the year 2020-21 as defendants. Said application was contested by defendants by filing reply (Annexure P-4). After hearing arguments, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara vide order dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) allowed the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading all co-sharers in suit property mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 96 in application as defendants.

Learned counsel representing petitioner/defendant No. 1 pointed out that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are husband and wife. They had jointly purchased the property by virtue of two sale deeds dated 14.01.2004. After getting the site plan sanctioned, house was constructed. Both husband and wife shifted to America in the year 1995. On account of matrimonial dispute, they took divorce. Thereafter, plaintiff filed present suit seeking partition of said joint property (Annexure P-1). Entire area now comes under abadi area. Other co-owners have also constructed their respective houses. Suit filed by plaintiff is pertaining to the house which was constructed after getting the site plan sanctioned from Municipal Corporation, Phagwara. Other co-owners recorded in revenue record have no concern with this house. Therefore, there was no requirement to implead the co-sharers mentioned in revenue record as defendants. Aforesaid factual position was not appreciated by learned trial Court and wrongly allowed the application by passing impugned order dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure P-5). It is prayed that present civil revision may be allowed and impugned order dated 11.08.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara may kindly be set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent/plaintiff pointed out that while filing the written statement (Annexure P-2), preliminary objection was raised by petitioner/defendant No.1 that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, in order to meet with said objection, respondent/plaintiff filed application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading all co-sharers as defendants who were reflected in Jamabandi for the year 2020-21. Learned counsel representing respondent/plaintiff conceded that property was purchased by virtue of two sale deeds dated 14.01.2004 and thereafter, the house was constructed thereon. It is also conceded that before raising construction, site plan was got sanctioned from Municipal Corporation, Phagwara. But only reason for impleading the co-owners was to meet with objection raised by petitioner/defendant No. 1 in his written statement.

4. I have considered the aforesaid factual position. Respondent/plaintiff filed suit for separate possession by way of partition by meets and bounds of joint property i.e. House No. 205-206 near JCT Mill, Greater Kailash, Phagwara, District Kapurthala. Learned counsel(s) representing both the sides admitted that house is situated in abadi area. It was constructed after getting the site plan sanctioned from competent authority. It is also admitted that other co-sharers mentioned in revenue record have no concern with aforesaid house. Translated copy of Jamabandi (Annexure R-1) clearly shows the area in dispute as abadi area owned and possessed by several co-owners.

In the light of this, for the disposal of suit filed by respondent/plaintiff, co-owners recorded in Jamabandi are not required to be impleaded as defendants. Learned trial Court while deciding application under Order I Rule 10 CPC has totally ignored the nature of property in question as it exists at the time of filing of suit. Therefore, impugned order dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara, allowing the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC is not justified and same is, accordingly set aside and civil revision preferred by petitioner/defendant No. 1 is, accordingly allowed.

5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of accordingly.

Petition allowed.

********