Back
1983 Supreme(Pat) 311
PATNA HIGH COURT
Ashwini Kumar Sinha, J.
Raja Ram Singh
Versus
Kapildeo Singh
Civil Revision No. 1219 of 1981 ; 1221 of 1981 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 21, 1983
The court's discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to add or remove parties to a suit is a judicial discretion which must be exercised on sound principles of law.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) - INTERVENTION - ADDITION OF PARTIES - JUDICIAL DISCRETION - CONDITIONS - REJECTION OF INTERVENTION APPLICATION - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to intervene in a title suit for partition of land, claiming joint possession over the disputed properties. The court below rejected their applications, finding that they had not established any interest in the suit land and that their presence was not necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the exercise of power vested in the court under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure is discretionary and must be based upon sound principles of law. The court found that the impugned order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error and did not need to be interfered with.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had established any interest in the suit land? 2. Whether the presence of the petitioners was necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit? 3. Whether the court below had exercised its judicial discretion properly in rejecting the petitioners' applications for intervention?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioners failed to produce any document to show joint possession of the disputed properties. 2. The court found that the petitioners' claim of joint possession was contradicted by their own earlier claim in a different title suit. 3. The court held that the petitioners' presence was not necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit, as the suit was limited to the partition of land falling in one of the two tauzis claimed by the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both revision applications, holding that the impugned order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error and did not need to be interfered with.
1. Civil Revision No. 1219 of 1981 and Civil Revision No. 1221 of 1981 arise out of the same order. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Opposite Parties 1 and 2 filed title Suit No. 121 Of 1975 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Begusarai, against opposite parties 3 to 15 for partition of schedules A, B and C lands and also for carving a separate Patti of the plaintiffs by a pleader commissioner and thereafter for passing preliminary decree. It is desirable to mention just here that the petitioners in the instant two revision applications were not made parties in the title suit.
3. The aforesaid two revision applications are directed against order dated 2nd July. 1981 by which the applications filed by the petitioners of each case for being added as intervener-defendants have been rejected by the court below. Thus, the two sets of applicants who claimed to be added as intervener-defendants in the aforesaid title suit have filed separate revision applications. The court below, by its impugned order, held as follows. Admittedly, there was a collectorate partition case 19 of 1926 and that two tauzis viz. 10038 and 10039 were carved out of the original tauzi 5005 having many co-sharer landlords. The plaintiffs and defendants of that suit were given delivery of possession of the lands of tauzi 10038 which was carved out of original tauzi 5005. The plaintiffs father Ram Rachha Singh and the father of defendants second set Bhola Singh were applicant 9 which was an admitted fact. In that collectorate partition case, Raja Ram Singh (who is petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1219 of 1981) and late Shri Thakur Prasad Singh father of second set of intervener-defendants i.e. father of Ram Nandan Singh and Ram Naresh Singh) were applicant 10. These facts ire admitted. Thakur Prasad Singh (father of the second set of intervener-defendants) and Raja Ram Singh (first set of intervener-defendants) opted to get joint Patti of the lands in their shares of original tauzi 5005 and a separate tauzi 10039 was carved out accordingly. The delivery of possession with regard to the lands of tauzi 10038 was also given to the plaintiffs and the defendants. The present petitioners (who claim to be added as intervener-defendants) did not file any document to show as to when they came in joint possession of tauzi Nos. 10038 and 10039 when once partition took place. The defendants 1st party of the present suit (Title Suit No. 121 of 1975) filed a certified copy of the plaint of one Title Suit No. 18 of 1948, which shows that Shri Raja Ram Singh (petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1219 of 1981) the first set of intervener-defendant and Shri Thakur Prasad Singh (father of second set of intervener-defendants) had filed a title suit against one Matukdhari Singh one of the co-sharers landlords of original tauzi 5005. This shows that a separate tauzi 10046 had been Prepared in the name of Matukdhari Singh and by this Title Suit No. 18 of 1 948 the petitioner of Civil Revision No. 1219 of 1981 and the father of the petitioners in Civil Revision No. 1221 of 1981 had pleaded earlier partition and were claiming the house belonging to Matukdhari Singh as having fallen in their tauzi 10039.
4. The court below, on a consideration of materials, came to the following conclusion:-
"From the discussions made above it transpires that the tauzi 10038 was allotted to the plaintiffs and defendants second set in collectorate partition 19 of 1926 and there is no proof that the intervener-defendants have derived any title by operation of law or by transfer or by any subsequent decree of the court. I, therefore, find that the intervener-defendants have got no interest in the suit land and no purpose shall be served if they are made parties in this suit. I, therefore, reject the petitions of both sets of intervener-defendants."
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner (in Civil Revision No. 1219 of 1981) contended firstly, that the p
