Back
SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Shobhan Mandal – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
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 17.01.2018 passed by learned Munsif, Araria in Title Suit No. 332 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners under Order – 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for their impleadment as party-defendants was rejected.
3. The plaintiffs (private respondents No. 4 to 8 herein) have filed a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 332 of 1998 claiming title of the suit property on the basis of adverse possession in which defendants State of Bihar represented through the District Collector, Araria filed written statement and contested the suit to the effect that the said suit land does not belong to the plaintiffs.
4. Petitioners claimed that they are necessary and proper parties being in possession of the suit property from last more than 30 years and cultivating the same, when they came to know about the suit, filed the impleadment petition dated 20.02.2017 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought for their impleadment as defendants stating that the land in qu
Impleadment as part defendant in suit – Legal claim of petitioner cannot be defeated merely on the ground of delay or advance stage of proceeding of suit.
The court emphasized that necessary and proper parties must be included for effective adjudication, and the trial court erred in denying the petitioners' impleadment.
In a suit for permanent injunction, parties can only be added if they are necessary for adjudication; plaintiffs hold the discretion to determine who is included without compulsion to add parties not....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. and the principles regarding impleadment of parties as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case....
The main legal point established is that the court has the discretion to add necessary parties for efficacious adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of suits, as provided under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) o....
A party cannot be impleaded in an ongoing suit against the wishes of the plaintiff unless they are deemed a necessary or proper party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
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
