A person can be joined as a party-defendant to a suit without the concurrence of the plaintiff only if that person is a necessary party.

JUDGMENT - 1. This is an application to revise an order passed by the Civil Judge (J. D) Shahada, dated 8th October 1969, granting an application by the defendant that on Kamalabai be added as a party to this suit.

2. That facts of the plaintiffs case are that the property in question originally belonged to one Dwarkadas Vithaldas, from whom the plaintiff purchased it by a registered sale deed dated 30th March 1964. The defendant was a tenant occupying a part of the ground floor of the said property and the plaintiff by his notice to quit dated 28th September 1967 terminated that tenancy and filed the present suit on the 3rd of January 1968 to eject the defendant. On the 14th of March 1968 the defendant filed a written statement contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff had to title to the said property and that the owner thereof was Kamlabai the wife of the said Dwarkadas from whom the plaintiff claimed to have purchased the property. The defendant thereafter on the 7th of August 1969 made an application that the said Kamlabai be added as a party - defendant to this suit, and the learned Judge by his order dated 8th October 1969 under revision took the view that it was clear from the contention in the pleadings that Kamlabai had "some interest" in the suit property and was, therefore, a necessary party to the suit, that if Kamlabai was added as a party - defendant to the suit no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff, and that the defendants application for the addition of Kamlabai as a party - defendant to the suit should, therefore, be granted. It is from that order that the plaintiff has approached this court in revision. The application made by the defendant for the addition of the said Kamlabai is undoubtedly an application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the terms of which are very wide and empower the court to add any person as a party to a suit, either on the application of one of the parties or even suo motu, if in its opinion that person ought to have been joined or his presence before the court is necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The wide terms of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) have given rise to several conflicting decisions of various courts in regard to its interpretation, but having considered the authorities that were cited before me in the course of the hearing of this revision application. I think the following propositions emerge therefrom :-

1. That the question of addition of parties under Order 1, Rule 10 Civil P. C. is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the Court, but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case (AIR 1958 SC 886 Paras 7, 13 and 14);

2. That in a suit relating to property, like the present one in order that a person may be added as a party, he should be shown to have a direct interest in the subject - matter of the litigation (AIR 1958 Sc 886, paras 8 and 13);

3. In exercising its discretion under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P. C. the court would not "ordinarily" add a party without the concurrence of the plaintiff. (41 Bom LR 249 at p. 256) = (AIR 1939 Bom 188). I am bound by that decision of a Division Bench of this court, and I respectfully agree with the same because the plaintiff is a dominus litus as far as the litigation in question is concerned. From this it would follow that it is only in exceptional cases that a party would be added as a party - defendant to the suit without the concurrence of the plaintiff (AIR 1969 Punj 57 para 9).

4. The court would add a person as a party - defendant to a suit without the concurrence of the plaintiff to that suit only where the party sought to be added is a necessary party as distinguished from a mere proper party. This is the view which a single Judge of the Punjab High Court has taken in the case of Banarasidas v. Pannalal, AIR 1969 Punj 57, para

Click Here to Read the rest of this document