Third Party Denied Entry in Property Dispute: P&H High Court Upholds Plaintiff’s Choice, Rejects Impleadment in Sewage Pipeline Suit

Case Name: Aadil Rashid Thind v. Amna and Others

Date of Judgment: 22.04.2026

Citation: CR-1798-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The High Court held that a person cannot be impleaded as a party under Order I Rule 10 CPC unless he is a necessary or proper party, and where no relief is claimed against him and the dispute can be effectively adjudicated between existing parties, impleadment is not warranted.

Summary: The petitioner invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 challenging the trial court’s order dismissing his application for impleadment as a defendant in a suit for mandatory injunction.

The original suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking removal of a sewage pipeline allegedly laid within their private property. The defendants contested the claim, asserting that the pipeline was situated in a common passage.

During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner sought impleadment on the ground that he owned a residential plot in the vicinity and that removal of the pipeline could adversely affect his access to essential civic amenities such as sewage facilities.

The trial court dismissed the application, holding that the dispute was confined to the location of the pipeline and that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party.

The High Court, affirming this view, observed that the petitioner’s defence was identical to that of the existing defendants and that no relief had been sought against him. It further held that even if the plaintiffs succeed, the pipeline would merely be relocated lawfully and not extinguished, thereby not prejudicing the petitioner’s rights in the manner alleged.

The Court emphasized the principle of dominus litis, recognizing the plaintiff’s right to choose the parties against whom relief is sought, and noted that the petitioner, if aggrieved, could pursue an independent remedy in accordance with law.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that no illegality or perversity was found in the trial court’s order refusing impleadment. It concluded that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party and that the suit could be effectively adjudicated between the existing parties.