Rajni Singh v. Chattar Singh Saini & Ors.

1. Sh. Chattar Singh Saini (since deceased) had filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. Such suit was filed way back in year 2011 and plaintiff, inter alia, sought a decree of mandatory injunction. The abovesaid suit was later on amended and plaintiff prayed for a decree of possession in respect of suit property, situated at Village Masjid CM(M) 535/2025 2 Moth, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi.

2. When the abovesaid suit was at the stage of final arguments, an application was moved by Ms. Rajni Singh (petitioner herein) and Mr. Jagdish Chandra (since deceased) to intervene in the matter. They requested for their impleadment contending that the first floor and the second floor of the same property had been purchased by them vide sale deeds dated 29.10.2015 and 30.12.2016.

3. Such application was allowed by learned Trial Court on 05.08.2024 and they were, accordingly, impleaded as defendants. It seems that the abovesaid request was not even opposed by plaintiff as they did not want any further delay in the disposal of their suit.

4. Mr. Jagdish Chandra (since deceased) as defeandant No.9.

5. While permitting the impleadment, opportunity was also granted to both the defendants to file written statements.

6. However, they did not file any written statement and rather moved two different applications.

7. By virtue of one application moved under Order VII Rule 11, the newly impleaded defendants sought rejection of the plaint and by virtue of another application moved under Order I Rule 10(4) CPC read with Section 151 CPC, they contended that they could not have been called upon to file written statement as there was no amended plaint. Both the abovesaid applications were taken up by learned Trial Court and has been disposed of by common order dated 13.01.2025.

8. Such order is under challenge.

9. Ms. Anju Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance in the present petition is merely restricted to the order so far as it CM(M) 535/2025 3 relates to disposal of their application moved under Order I Rule 10 (4) CPC. She submits that while disposing of the abovesaid applications, learned Trial Court has even dropped them from array of parties which has caused serious prejudice to them.

10. Order I Rule 10(4) CPC read as under:-

11. Admittedly, earlier, there was an injunction order with respect to the suit property which was passed by learned Trial Court way back on 05.03.2013 and in view of the statement made by learned counsel for defendant Nos.[1] to 3 and the statement made by defendant No.4 himself, the defendants were directed not to raise any illegal or unauthorized construction in the suit property and they were also directed not to sell, alienate or transfer the same without permission of the Court.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, who appears on advance notice, submits that the abovesaid property was sold by defendant No.4, despite there being a clear-cut injunction order against him. He submits that though petitioner herein was added as a party to the proceedings, later on, but that does not give her any handle to stall the entire proceedings and to make a request to have trial, de novo. It is also submitted that learned Trial Court granted them permission to file written statements and such opportunity was not availed. On the contrary, they moved applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and under Order I Rule 10(4) CPC, despite fact knowingly fully well CM(M) 535/2025 4 that role in the present proceedings is very limited. It is submitted that though they claimed themselves to be the bona fide purchasers, there is some apparent collusion between them and defendant No.4 as the property was sold way back in the year 2016 and no step, whatsoever, was taken by them to get themselves impleaded.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of the arguments, reiterated that, at the moment, she does not challenge the dismissal of her application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. She submits that even if her application moved under Order I Rule 10 (4) CPC had no merit, learned Trial Court should not have deleted their names from the array of parties. It is reiterated that such impleadment order was passed with no objection coming from the side of plaintiff and, therefore, there was no reason or occasion for the learned Trial Court to have deleted their names from the array of parties.

14. Undoubtedly, learned Trial Court, while disposing of the abovesaid application moved under Order I Rule 10(4) CPC, has gone way beyond and has even directed that defendant Nos.[8] and 9 be deleted from the array of parties. Once they had been permitted to be added as defendants in the suit, that too with the ‘no objection’ coming from the other side, they should not have been deleted or dropped from the array of parties, merely because they had moved application under Order I Rule 10(4) CPC.