Back
2011 Supreme(Pat) 2110
2012 (1) PLJR 640
PATNA HIGH COURT
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.
Sukhdeo Paswan ...Petitioner
vs.
The State of Bihar through Collector, Vaishali, Hajipur & Ors....Respondents
CWJC No. 11834 of 2011
Decided On: 13.10.2011
The plaintiff has the right to oppose the addition of parties, and the Court must consider whether the presence of a party is necessary or proper for effective adjudication.
Headnote:
Article 227 - Jurisdiction of Court - Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code - 2010(7) Supreme Court Cases 417
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title over a property and for restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. The interveners filed an application to be added as defendants, claiming easementary rights over a road adjacent to the property.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the interveners were not necessary or proper parties in the suit and that their claim was outside the purview of the plaintiff's case. The Court held that the order allowing the interveners' application was unsustainable in the eye of law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the interveners should be added as defendants in the suit despite the plaintiff's opposition.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the plaintiff is dominus litis and has the right to oppose the addition of parties. It cited the principle that a necessary party is one without whom no effective decree could be passed, and a proper party is one whose presence would enable the Court to completely adjudicate the matters in dispute.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ application, setting aside the impugned order and rejecting the interveners' application.
I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parvat on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Surendra, Kishore Thakur on behalf of the respondent Nos. 7 to 10 and Mr. Md. S. Siddique, A.C. to A.A.G.-IX on behalf of the original defendant-respondent.
2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.5.2011 as contained in Annexure-3 passed by Civil Judge-1st (Sr. Division), Hajipur in Title Suit No. 263 of 2003 whereby the learned Court below allowed the application filed by the interveners-respondents 3rd set under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code and impleaded them as defendants in the suit.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff cannot force to fight litigation against a person against whom he has not claimed any relief. The interveners-respondent are neither necessary party nor proper party in the present suit but the learned Court below has allowed their application and, thereby exercised the jurisdiction arbitrarily. According to the learned counsel, the said respondents are not claiming title or interest in the suit property rather they are claiming their easementary right and, therefore, their right cannot be decided in the present suit.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the intervener-respondent submitted that the learned Court below has exercised the jurisdiction judiciously and the learned Court below found that the interveners are proper party and, therefore, allowed their application. In such circumstances in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, this Court will refrain from interfering with the impugned order which has been passed in exercise of judicial discretion.
5. It appears that the plaintiff-petitioner with others filed Title Suit No. 263 of 2003 praying for declaration of their title over Schedule-I property alleging that the said property is part of old Plot Nos. 297 and 925 which are in possession of the plaintiffs and the same has wrongly been recorded in the revisional record of right in the name of defendants, i.e., respondent 1st set. The plaintiff further prayed for restraining the defendants by issuance of permanent injunction from interfering in peaceful possession of plaintiff and from making any construction over the disputed land. The interveners-respondent 3rd set filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) on 15.3.2010 praying for their addition as defendant on the ground that their houses are adjacent east of Municipal Road and the plaintiff is raising claim over the road. It is stated that the plaintiff has filed the suit with an intention to close the road. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below found that the intervener had only way which is being used by them for going to their house. The learned Court below also observed that they are not claiming title on the disputed land of the plaintiff. Because, that is the way which is being used by the intervener, they are necessary party.
6. Admittedly, in this case, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration as stated above. The plaintiff has prayed for declaration of title and correction of record of right. According to the Court below also, the interveners are not claiming any title on the suit property. In absence of the said interveners, it cannot be said that the Court will be unable to decide the suit or grant the relief in favour of the plaintiff. The claim of the intervener is outside the purview of the plaintiff' case. They are claiming easementary right. Whether they have got easementary right or not is a separate issue. Without their being any evidence on the basis of application only, the Court below found that they are using the road since before and found that they have got easementary right. It is also admitted that the suit property is recorded in the survey record in the name of Municipality.
7. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that
