Back
1999(2) Supreme 172
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., M. Srinivasan & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Savitri Devi -Appellant
versus
District Judge, Gorakhpur & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 932 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 566 of 1998)
Decided on 18-2-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Rajesh Tyagi and Praveen Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondents Nos. 3-5 : B.L. Yadav and Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Advocates.
Held : Order I, Rule 10 CPC enables the Court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision in the Code. (Para 9)
There is a dispute as to whether the first defendant in the suit was party to the order of injunction made by the Court on 18.8.92. The proceedings for punishing him for contempt are admittedly pending. The plea raised by him that the first respondent had played a fraud not only against him but also on the Court would have to be decided before it can be said that the sales effected by the first defendant were in violation of the order of the Court. The plea raised by respondents 3 to 5 that they were bona fide transferees for value in good faith may have to be decided before it can be held that the sales in their favour created no interest in the property. The aforesaid questions have to be decided by the Court either in the suit or in the application filed by respondents 3 to 5 for impleadment in the suit. If the application for impleadment is thrown out without a decision on the aforesaid questions, respondents 3 to 5 will certainly come up with a separate suit to enforce their alleged rights which means multiplicity of proceedings. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that respondents 3 to 5 are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. (Para 8)
(ii) Pleadings - Impleading of judicial officer who dispossed matter as parties-Not permissible-Practice to be stopped-Practice of impleading judicial officer as contesting party strongly depricated.
Held : Before parting with this case it is necessary for us to point out one aspect of the matter which is rather disturbing. In the writ petition filed in the High Court as well as the Special Leave Petition filed in this Court, the District Judge, Gorakhpur and the 4th Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gorakhpur are shown as respondents and in the Special Leave Petition they are shown as contesting respondents. There was no necessity for impleading the judicial officers who disposed of the matter in a civil proceeding when the writ petition was filed in the High Court; nor is there any justification for impleading them as parties in the Special Leave Petition and describing them as contesting respondents. We do not approve of the course adopted by the petitioner which would cause unnecessary disturbance to the functions of the concerned judicial officers. They cannot be in any way equated to the officials of the Government. It is high time that the practice of impleading judicial officers disposing of civil proceedings as parties to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was stopped. We are strongly depricating such a practice. (Para 14)
Judgment
Srinivasan, J.-Leave granted.
2. The appellant has filed a civil suit bearing No. 1586/92 in the Court of Munsif, Gorakhpur against her four sons for a decree for maintenance and for creation of a charge over the ancestral property of the family. The suit was filed on 14.8.92 and was fixed for hearing on 31.8.92. She applied for an interim order of injunction restraining her sons from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit. But on 16.8.92, a Vakalat was filed on behalf of the defendants and 4th defendant also filed an affidavit in the Court purporting to be on behalf of the defendants. The counsel appearing for the parties expressed their consent before the Court that during the pendency of the case the parties could be directed not to sell the suit property to any third person. In the light of the consent of the counsel, the Court passed an order on that date directing the parties not to transfer the disputed property described in the plaint in favour of any other person till the final disposal of the suit.
3. On 19.8.1992 the first defendant sold his 1/4th share in one of the lands to the third respondent and 1/4th share in another land to the 4th respondent. On 27.8.92 he sold 1/4th share in yet another land to the 5th respondent. All the three sales were by registered sale deeds. On 1.1.93 respondents 3 to 5 filed an application before the trial Court under Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC for impleading them as parties to the suit. In the application they had stated that the first defendant had received sale consideration before executing the sale deeds and handed over possession of the subject-matter of the sale deeds to them. It was also alleged that the plaintiff and the defendants had colluded together in order to cause loss to them. That application was opposed by the appellant. In the statement of objections, it was stated that the sales were in breach, contempt and disregard of the order of injunction passed by the Court and the transferees under such sales got no title to the property in order to get impleaded as parties to the suit.
4. The trial Court passed a detailed order on 14.7.97 granting the application of respondents 3 to 5 and directed the plaintiff to implead them as defendants in the suit. In the order of the trial Court reference has been made to an application filed by the first defendant to the effect that he was not earlier aware of the case and the 4th defendant had forged his signature and filed a bogus vakalatnama. He had also alleged that the order of injunction was obtained fraudulently on 18.8.92. The trial Court has also referred to an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed by the first defendant and observed that the same had been dismissed by order dated 20.12.92. There is also a reference in the order of the trial Court to a proceeding in the High Court filed by the plaintiff for quashing orders dated 10.11.95 and 19.4.96 passed in the suit and a miscellaneous civil appeal arising from the suit wherein respondents 3 to 5 had been impleaded as parties. It is seen from the order of the trial Court that certain proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC concerning the question of attachment of the properties sold were also pending. It is only after taking note of all those facts, the trial Court allowed the application of respondents 3 to 5 to implead them as parties to the suit.
5. A revision by the plaintiff in the Court of District Judge, Gorakhpur suffered a dismissal though the District Judge passed certain strictures against the conduct of the first defendant on the assumption that he had knowledge of the order of injunction dated 18.8.92. However, the District Judge proceeded on the footing that respondents 3 to 5 who were third parties had no knowledge of the proceedings in the Court.
6. The said order of the District Judge was challenged in writ petition by the appellant in the High Court. By order dated 29.9.97, the High Court dismissed the same
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
