Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT NAGPUR
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
Kamal S/o Rambalak Verma – Petitioner
Versus
Nagpur Municipal Corporation – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8148 of 2023
Decided On : 19-12-2023
[IMPLEADMENT] - [CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT] - [Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, Section 53(1) MRTP Act] - [The court discussed the necessity of impleading the property owner in a suit challenging a notice issued under the MRTP Act. It highlighted that the owner has a vital interest in the property, and the presence of the owner is essential for a complete adjudication of the dispute. The court interpreted the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, emphasizing that a person can be added as a party if they have a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit, which influenced the decision to allow the impleadment.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, tenants of a property, challenged a notice issued under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act to the property owner regarding unauthorized construction. The owner sought to be impleaded in the suit, which the trial court allowed, leading to the petitioners' challenge of this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property owner (respondent No. 3) had a vital interest in the subject matter of the suit, as the notice pertained to unauthorized construction affecting the property. The court concluded that the owner was a necessary party for the effective adjudication of the case.
Issues: Whether the property owner is a necessary party to the suit challenging the notice under the MRTP Act, and whether the trial court's order allowing the impleadment was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, a person with a vital interest in the subject matter of the suit can be added as a party, even against the wishes of the original plaintiffs. The presence of the owner was deemed necessary for a complete and effective adjudication of the dispute regarding the notice issued under the MRTP Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition challenging the trial court's order, allowing the impleadment of the property owner as a necessary party in the suit.
JUDGMENT :
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.
3. In a suit filed by the petitioners, i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 418 of 2023, challenging the notice dated 10/03/2023 (Page 38) issued by the respondent No. 2 under section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as “MRTP Act”) to the respondent No. 3, an application for impleadment was filed by the respondent No. 3, who is the owner of the property in question in which the petitioner is a tenant on the ground floor. This application is at Ex.19 and has been allowed by the learned Trial Court by the impugned order dated 21/11/2023 (Page 92).
4. Mr. Gour, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order is unjustified inasmuch as, it does not consider the parameters of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (for short “CPC”) and specifically the position that the presence of the respondent No. 3 is not necessary for the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, on account of which, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. He also contends that since the petitioners are dominus litis, the application cannot be permitted against the will of the plaintiff. In support of his contention, Mr. Gour, learned counsel fro the petitioners, placed reliance on Mohamed Hussain Gulam Shariffi vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, (2020) 14 SCC 392, Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524, Kishor Chandrkant Urane vs. City of Nagpur Corporation and Others in Writ Petition No. 937 of 2017 decided on 04.04.2018, Sulbha Devendra Kokate vs. Surekha Kokate, 2022 (1) All MR 152, Chouhan Builders India Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. vs. BMC and Another, Writ Petition No. 4265 of 2014 decided on 15.07.2016, Shyam Fatechand Shende vs. Alka, 1998 (1) Mh. L.J. 410, Sudhamayee Pattnaik vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo, AIR Online 2022 SC 120, Santosh Hanumant Salunkhe vs. Municipal Commissioner, Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation, 2018 (4) ABR 414, Khader Khan M. Khan vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1993 (3) SCC 644 as well as Deju Somaya Salian vs. Municipal Corpration of Greater Mumbai, Writ Petition No. 7123 of 2018, decided on 24.09.2018.
5. Mr. Vaidya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, supports the impugned order, contending that it is the respondent No. 3, who is the owner of the property, to whom the notice has been addressed, which is not only in respect of the portion of the property occupied by the petitioners as a tenant, but is also in respect of other portion of the upper floors with which the petitioners have no concern. He therefore, contends that since the respondent No. 3 is the owner of the property, he has every right to be impleaded in the suit filed by the tenants/petitioners questioning the legality and validity of the notice under section 53(1) of the MRTP Act. He places reliance upon Adam A. Sorathia vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, 2001 (3) Mh. L.J. 288, Mulraj Khatau and Sons Ltd. vs. Nagesh Samar Bahadur Singh, 2018 (3) Mh. L.J. 54 and Aliji Momonji vs. Lalji Mawi and Others, (1996) 5 SCC 379.
6. Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, supports the impugned order, relying upon the provisions of section 53(1) of the MRTP Act which require a notice to be issued to the owner regarding unauthorized construction.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the tenants on the ground floor occupying three rooms block; one room admeasuring 20 ft. x 18 ft. and the other two rooms admeasuring 12 ft. x 15 ft. each, along with toilet and bathroom under the agreement of tenancy dated 01/08/1994. It is also not in dispute that there are litigation pending between the petitioners on the one hand and the respondent No. 3 on the other for eviction, ins
The principle that a property owner is a necessary party in a suit concerning notices affecting their property rights, as their interests are directly impacted by the outcome of the litigation.
The court ruled that only necessary parties may be added to a suit, and the principle of dominus litis limits parties to those without whom effective adjudication cannot occur.
Object of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is that person whose presence is necessary before Court, is made a necessary party to effectually adjudicate upon rights of parties and settle all questions involved in ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court is empowered to permit the landlord/owner to be impleaded as a proper party in a suit filed by the occupier/tenant/licensee seeking ....
The court affirmed that a necessary party is one whose presence is essential for the effective adjudication of a suit, and the trial court has the discretion to add such parties under Order I Rule 10....
A person with a direct interest in the subject matter of a suit has the right to be impleaded as a party, ensuring that all relevant issues can be fully adjudicated.
The determination of necessary parties under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC relies on judicial discretion, emphasizing the dominus litis principle, as a plaintiff cannot be compelled to include parties again....
The High Court's supervisory powers under Article 227 are limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority, and it cannot interfere without evidence of jurisdictional abuse.
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
