Back
2011 Supreme(Bom) 1131
2012 (1) ALL MR 187
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
S.S. SHINDE
Sushil Kaur W/o Sukhbirsingh Chhatwal & Others
Versus
Aurangabad Ginning & Pressing Factory & Another
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 105 OF 2006
Decided on : 22-09-2011
For the Applicants:K.C. Sant, Advocate.
For the Respondents:P.S. Sonpethkar, Advocate.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I, Rule 10(2) - Addition of party to proceedings - Court, may, at any stage of proceedings allow to join as party to proceedings whether as plaintiff or defendant in order to enable Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon, settle all questions involved in suit.
On careful perusal of the documents produced by the respondent along with the written notes of arguments and averments in the application, which was filed before the appellate Court for adding him as party in the appeal, it is crystal clear that the respondent No. 1 has a substantial interest in the suit property. Therefore, for complete and effectual disposal of the proceeding filed by the applicants herein before the Courts below, the respondent No. 1 is a necessary party. The appellate Court on perusal of averments in the application and number of documents produced on record, has reached to the definite and correct conclusion that the respondent No. 1 is a necessary party in the proceedings filed by the applicants, and therefore, Court does not find any reason to interfere in the judgment and order passed by the Ad hoc District Judge, which is impugned in this revision application.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I, Rule 10(2) - Addition of parties - Since in a suit for perpetual injunction filed by applicants, respondent-1 has a substantial interest in suit property hence respondent-1 is required to be added as party in appeal for complete and effectual disposal of proceedings.
At the outset in would be relevant to reproduce the provisions of Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
From perusal of the provisions of Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is abundantly clear that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, may allow to join as party to the proceedings whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Therefore, the powers exercised by the Ad hoc District Judge-3, Aurangabad while allowing the application of the respondent No. 1 herein for adding them as party to the suit tiled by the applicants are within the four corners of law and certainly governed by the provisions of Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Therefore, the Ad hoc District Judge-3, Aurangahad has acted within the four corners of the provisions of Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The District Judge had power to entertain the application filed by the respondent No. 1 and such powers are exercised by the concerned Court properly.
1. This Civil Revision Application is filed aggrieved by the order passed on application below Exhibit10 in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 177 of 2006 dated 1st December, 2006 by the Adhoc Additional District Judge-3, Aurangabad.
2. The revision applicants herein are the original plaintiffs, who have filed the suit against the respondent no.2 praying for perpetual injunction from demolishing the construction on the suit land. In the said suit, the revision applicants filed an application for temporary injunction. However, same was rejected. Being aggrieved with the same, the applicants filed Misc. Civil Appeal no. 177 of 2006 before the District Court along with application Exhibit-5 for temporary injunction.
The respondent no.1 herein thereafter filed application Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure for addition of parties in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 177 of 2006. The avernments in the said application filed by the respondent no.1 herein are as under :-
"1. That, the applicant being owner and possessor of the property and portion of Survey No. 57, having Municipal No.4-18-47/1, C.T.S. No. 13162 and 13163, situated at Jafar Gate, Aurangabad. They filed the suit bearing R.C.S. No. 218/1972 for possession of a room admeasuring 10' X 10' and for perpetual injunction for the rest of portion against (1) Nutanbai, (2) Ravelsingh, (3) Pratpsingh and (4) Mir Maqsood Ali Khan. After hearing the suit on merit, it came to be decreed by the Hon'ble 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Aurangabad, by its Judgment and Decree dated 30.9.1975. The defendnats challenged said decree by filing R.C.A. No. 195/1975 in the Hon'ble District Court, Aurangabad, and said appeal came to be allowed on 25.10.1978. Against the said decree of Appellate Court, the present applicant preferred IInd Appeal No. 189/1979 in the Hon'ble High Court and said appeal came to be allowed on 16.12.1991, but, due to interpolation in the said judgment in High Court, the applicant filed C.A. No. 415/2003 for correction of Judgment and deletion of interpolation. In said C.A. the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 Sukhbirsingh, who purchased said property during pendency of the suit was also unpleaded as party and after hearing him, C.A. No. 415/2003 came to be allowed on 21.09.2004. Sukhbirsingh unsuccessfully challenged the said order by filing S.L.P. No. 21339/2004 in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
2. That, the applicant filed Reuglar Darkhast No. 104/1994, for execution of decree passed in R.C.S. No. 218/1972 and confirmed by Hon'ble High Court. The applicant came to know that the husband of present plaintiff no.1 is intending to start construction on suit property and therefore, he filed application for temporary injunction restraining Sukhbirsingh and others and defendants from changing the nature of suit property or alienating the said property or creating third party interest on 6.7.2005. The Hon'ble 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad, after hearing pleased to allow the application on 22.8.2005. During the pendency of said application status-quo order was passed on 8.7.2005. In spite of injunction order, Sukhbirsingh and after his demise the present plaintiffs continued the construction work and therefore, the applicant filed an application U/o 39 Rule 2-A of Civil Procedure Code, which is pending.
3. As such, the construction work of the plaintiffs is during enforcement of injunction order passed by the Court at the instance of the defendants as such, the applicant is interested party being title holder of the suit property. The plaintiffs have hided all above referred material facts from the Hon'ble 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, and tried to obtain equitable relief of temporary and perpetual injunction by misguiding the Hon'ble Court. When, the applicant came to know about filing of the said suit, the applicant also filed application for adding him as party in R.C.S. No. 870/2006 and the said application is for
