Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 1684
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Ashok S/o Babarao Patil – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No.10493 of 2022
Decided on : 11-10-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri Shailendra S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri K.B. Jadhavar, Adv
The court emphasized the wide powers of the court under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code to add necessary parties, even without an application, and held that the theory of dominus litis cannot be overstretched to obtain ineffective decrees.
Headnote:
Plaintiff - Addition of Defendants - Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code - - Order I Rule 10
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against government officers, excluding the trust and trustees claiming rights over the property. The trial court allowed an application to add the trust representatives as defendants, which the plaintiff opposed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff deliberately excluded the trust and trustees from the suit to obtain a decree of perpetual injunction. It held that the trial court correctly added the trust representatives as necessary parties to decide the competing claims effectively.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff's exclusion of the trust and trustees from the suit was deliberate and whether the trial court's decision to add them as defendants was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the wide powers of the court under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code to add necessary parties, even without an application. It held that the theory of dominus litis cannot be overstretched to obtain ineffective decrees and that the presence of the trust representatives was necessary to decide the relief claimed by the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the trial court's decision to add the trust representatives as defendants was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. Whether the principle of Plaintiff being dominus litus of his suit can be stretched to such an extent that it will circumscribe the power of a court to add a defendant is a short issue that arises in the present Petition.
3. Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Biloli on application below Exhibit 30 in R.C.S. No 209 of 2021. By that order application filed by the proposed defendant Nos. 9 and 10 to add them as defendants has been allowed.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that Petitioner is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 209 of 2021 filed in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Biloli, Dist. Nanded. Suit is filed for injunction simplicitor to restrain the defendants not to interfere in his peaceful possession over the properties described in the plaint. The plaintiff arrayed eight different Government officers as defendants to the suit. It is averred in the plaint that petitioner’s mother’s name was mutated to the land at Sy. Nos. 105/2, 104, 96, 97, 105/1 and 103 situated at Balapur, Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded. The 7/12 extract shows that the property stands in the name of Shriram Mandir Devasthan Nila and in the other rights column, the name of Devasthan Inam Archak Malatibai @ Nirmalabai (plaintiffs mother) is recorded. Upon death of his mother, he has succeeded to rights in respect of that property on the strength of will executed by his mother.
5. It is further averred in the plaint that one trust in the name and style “Shriram Temple Devastan, Nila,” is registered by one Mr. G. Rahu and others in the month of June 2020 and the suit properties were shown to be the trust properties. That the said trust does not have any right, title or interest over the suit properties. It is further averred that some unknown persons claiming to be trustees of that trust were filing applications to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit properties. This is the cause of action disclosed for institution of suit.
6. However when the suit was filed, the petitioner did not implead the trust or the trustees who claimed right, title and interest in the suit properties or at whose behest his possession was sought to be disturbed. He chose to array only the revenue and police officials as defendants to the suit.
7. This led to filing of an application by T. Somaiah and Akkam Kishan in plaintiff’s suit under the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of the Civil Procedure (for short “Code”) for adding them as defendants. The application was resisted by the plaintiff-petitioner. By the order impugned in the present petition, the Trial Court has proceeded to allow the application directing addition of those applicants as defendant Nos. 9 and 10.
8. Appearing for the petitioner Mr. Gangakhedkar the learned counsel would submit that the plaintiff’s suit is for injunction simplicitor and that no declaration is sought in the suit. Since injunction is sought only against eight original defendants, those defendants alone would be bound by any order/decree that will be passed in the suit. That Plaintiff cannot be forced to file suit against persons, against whom he does not desire to claim any relief. In such a situation, respondent Nos. 9 and 10 cannot insist themselves to be added as party defendants. Mr. Gangakhedkar would submit that only in the event of petitioner-plaintiff claiming any declaration of title in the suit that the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 could possibly have themselves impleaded in the suit.
9. In support of his contention, Mr. Gangakhedkar relies upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Ramesh Shama Kumbhar and another Vs. Sudhakar Budha Kumbhar and others reported in 2013 BCI 554 and Letcia E. Dos M. Simoes Vs. Suresh Tukaram Shirodkar and another reported in 2022 SCC Online 491.
10. Considering the order that I prop
