Om Satyam Trivedi vs Abubakar Khan @ Lakhi Khan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Pat) 247

SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, J.
Civil Misc. Jur. No.690 of 2022
(13.4.2023)
Om Satyam Trivedi & Anr. ... Petitioners
vs.
Abubakar Khan @ Lakhi Khan
& Ors. ... Respondents

Advocates:
For the Petitioners: M/s Jitendra Kishore Verma, Shreyash Goyal, Prashant Vedasen, Abhay Nath, Pawan Kumar.
For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. Satya Narayan Singh.
For the State : Mr. S.K. Dwivedi, AC to AAG -12.

Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order I Rule 10(2) – Addition of parties in suit – Underlying principle regarding addition of parties is that there must be finality to litigation and to secure that purpose, it would be incumbent upon Court to add a party whose presence would be necessary to put an end to all controversy in litigation finally – Provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code are very wide and powers of Court are equally extensive – Even without application to be impleaded as a party, Court may, at any stage of proceedings order that name of any party, who ought to have been joined whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before Court may be necessary in order to enable Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in suit, be added – If a person is not found to be proper or necessary party, Court has no jurisdiction to implead him against wishes of plaintiff. (Paras 12, 13 and 15)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order I Rule 10(2) – Title suit – Dismissal of petition for addition as parties in suit – Plaintiff is dominus litis of his own suit – Theory of dominus litis cannot be overstretched in the matter of impleading parties which results in ineffective decrees passed in absence of necessary parties or where it is misused to obtain decree against non-interested persons / officials and then use it to assert rights of plaintiff – It is also for Court to ensure that real matter in dispute is effectively decided by impleading all those who are necessary parties – Merely because plaintiff does not choose to implead a person is not sufficient for rejection of application for being impleaded – Petitioners being proper party whose presence enables Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon matters in dispute in suit – Same constitute sufficient ground and interest to entitle them to be implead as party defendants – Petitioners to be impleaded as party defendants – Civil Miscellaneous Application allowed. (Paras 16, 18, 19 and 20)

Sunil Dutta Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by learned Munsif, Sherghati, Gaya in Title Suit No. 242 of 2019, whereby petition filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. for adding them as parties in the suit has been dismissed.

3. The plaintiff / respondent No. 1 has filed title suit bearing Title Suit No. 242 of 2019 against the State of Bihar for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land and further declaration that the R.S. Khatiyan with respect to the suit land is erroneous document.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed No. 6487 dated 23.11.2010 and is in possession of the same. However, when the plaintiff went to Anchal Office, Imamganj for mutation of purchased suit land he came to know that new khata has been opened in the name of the defendant / State of Bihar. The further case of the plaintiff is that in cadestral survey the suit land stand recorded as Gairmazarua Malikan possessed by the Malikan in the name of Durga Baidya who was the ancestor of the vendor of the suit land.

5. The petitioners / intervenors filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C. stating that the suit land was a ditch and water accumulates there for irrigation and it is being used for the public in general and petitioners in particular. The suit land in the revisional survey records of right recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar. During the revisional survey the suit land was wrongly and intentionally recorded in the name of Jaimangal Baidya and Ambuj Baidya, (vendor of the suit property to petitioners). The petitioners as well as some other persons filed revision before the Joint Director, Consolidation, Magadh Division under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act and the same was decided in favour of the State of Bihar. Against the order of Joint Director, Consolidation, Jai Mangal Sah and plaintiffs filed Civil Writ before the Hon’ble High Court, Patna and the same was dismissed on 09.02.2016 with liberty to approach Bihar Land Tribunal for appropriate releif and thereafter Jai Mangal Baidya and the plaintiffs filed a case in Bihar Land Tribunal and the same was decided and declared that the suit land is Gairmazarua Aam Malikan Parti. The plaintiffs want to grab the suit land on the basis of sale deed which is illegal and void which was opposed by the petitioners. The learned Court below dismissed the said petition for their impleadment in suit vide impugned order dated 22.08.2022 holding that the petitioner has not shown as to how he is necessary party to the suit.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the planitiff and his vendor did not move any Court against the order passed by the Bihar Land Tribunal by which it was held that the land in dispute is ditch and the water is used for irrigation purpose and the Joint Director has rightly held the land to be recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that plot of land was never described as kasht and it was not used for the purpose of agriculture and the ex-zamindar had not filed any zamindari return in his name at the time of abolition of zamindari and the land in question became land of State and in the recent survey the nature of land was described as Anabad Bihar Sarkar and during the consolidation proceeding when wrong entries were made in name of Jai Mangal Baidya and Ambuj Baidya then petitioners alongwith other persons of village who had been using the rain water for the purpose of irrigation from above plot of land, filed a revision petition under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act before the Court of Director Consolidation, Magadh Division, Gaya and during the pendency of the said revision petition before Consolidation Court, the said Jaimangal Baidya and Ambuj Baidya exe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document