IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, J.
Civil Misc. Jur. No.1355 of 2018
(26.6.2023)
Shakuntala Devi & Ors. ... Petitoners
vs.
Maya Devi & Ors. ... Respondents
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 – Respondents No. 10 & 11 added as defendants in the suit – the law is well settled that courts have ample power to add any person as party in the suit if he is necessary or proper party for proper adjudication of the case —however, the court is required to assign reason of an order on impleadment application – reason is the role of justice and any judicial order passed by the court must be speaking – in the present case, impugned order has been passed without any reason and accordingly, the impugned order set aside – Civil Misc. Application allowed – the learned trial court directed to pass order in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. (Paras 6, 7 & 8)
ORDER
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 17.07.2018 passed by learned Sub-Judge-IV, Jamui in Title Suit No. 219 of 2014 whereby the learned Court below allowed the impleadment Application for the impleadment of Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 as defendants in the instant suit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent nos. 10 and 11 have filed a petition dated 24.11.2017 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and under Section 151 CPC for their impleadment as necessary party in Title Suit No. 219 of 2014 on the ground that part of land in dispute refers boundary of the lands of intervenor which they, being ex-military personnel got through settlement from the Government and as such they are necessary parties in the suit. The petitioners, who are plaintiffs/petitioners objected the said claim stating that they are not the necessary parties in the suit but the said application was allowed by the learned Court below without hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has further submitted that the learned Court below without assigning any reason allowed the said petition which is cryptic and mechanical without application of mind and is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 10 and 11 submits that the respondent nos. 10 and 11 are necessary parties and it is in the interest of justice that they may be impleaded as party defendants in the case for proper adjudication of the case. However, he has conceded that the Court has not assigned any reason for passing the impugned order.
5. The law is well settled that judicial orders must be passed by applying judicial mind and assigning the reason while passing the order. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the impugned order has been passed in a cryptic manner without assigning any reason and without noticing the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Even the recall order dated 31.07.2018 has also been passed without assigning any reason for passing the said order.
6. The law is well settled that the Courts have ample power to add any person as party in the suit if he is necessary or proper party for proper adjudication of the case. The Court is required to assign reason of any order on impleadment application. Reason is the sole of justice and any judicial order passed by the Court must be speaking. An order disposing of an application necessarily requires recording of reason.
7. In the present case, without going into the merit of the application, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed without any reason. Accordingly, the said impugned order dated 17.07.2018 is set aside. The Civil Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed.
8. The learned trial Court is directed to pass order in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties, on the said petition dated 24.11.2017 filed by the respondent nos. 10 and 11 in the Court below. Both the parties are also directed to cooperate the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the said application.
9. With the aforesaid observations, this Civil Miscellaneous application is disposed of.
10. It is needless to say that this Court has not given any finding on the merit of the impleadment application and the Court below shall pass the order on the said aplication of intervenors, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the present order.
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....
The court emphasized that necessary and proper parties must be included for effective adjudication, and the trial court erred in denying the petitioners' impleadment.
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.
Implead of party - Suit for permanent injunction against the Government and when admittedly the property belongs to the Government the presence of the petitioner who claims to have purchased the said....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.