Back
2024 Supreme(Pat) 298
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Arun Kumar Jha, J.
Dalgira Devi W/o Nanhey Chaudhary – Petitioner
Versus
Ramkrit Mallah S/o Late Chaturi Mallah and ors. – Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.90 of 2017
Decided On : 01-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Parth Gaurav, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
A decree cannot be granted in favor of a party not formally made a party to the proceedings, highlighting the necessity of due process in civil litigation.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE - INTERVENTION IN SUIT - ORDER 1 RULE 10, SECTION 151 OF CPC - The court discussed the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the necessity of impleading necessary parties in a suit. The court interpreted these provisions to highlight that a decree cannot be passed in favor of a party not impleaded in the proceedings, thus influencing its decision to set aside the lower court's order that allowed the intervenors' prayer without their formal inclusion as parties.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a civil miscellaneous petition under Article 227 against an order allowing intervenors' prayer for allotment of property without their being made parties to the suit. The original suit was for partition of property, and the intervenors claimed rights based on prior sale deeds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower court's order was flawed as it did not formally add the intervenors as parties to the suit, rendering the allotment of property to them unsustainable. The court emphasized the importance of due process in civil proceedings.
Issues: Whether the lower court could grant relief to the intervenors without them being impleaded as parties to the suit, and whether the order for allotment of property was valid under the provisions of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a decree cannot be passed in favor of a party who is not a party to the proceedings, as per the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. The necessity of impleading necessary parties is fundamental to ensuring fair adjudication.
Final Decision: The court set aside the lower court's order and directed it to consider the intervenors' application for impleadment and then address their prayer for allotment of property.
JUDGMENT :
Arun Kumar Jha, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and I intend to dispose of the present civil miscellaneous petition at the stage of admission itself.
2. The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 21.12.2016 passed by the learned Sub-Judge II, Kaimur at Bhabhua in T.S. No. 274/1999 (F.D.), Registration No.3340/2014 whereby and where under the learned Sub-Judge has partially allowed the prayer of the Intervenor/Respondent 2nd set without impleading them as party to the suit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Title Suit No. 274/1999 has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhabhua for partition of 1/9 share in the properties mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint. The defendants appeared and filed three sets of written statement and contested the case. By judgment and decree dated 17.10.2016, the learned Sub Judge-II passed the decree for partition of 1/9 share in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff applied for preparation of final decree before the Subordinate Judge II, Bhabhua on 22.11.2016 and accordingly, a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner was appointed. While the proceeding of final decree had been taking place, the intervenors/respondent 2nd set filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘the Code’) contending, inter alia that in the suit, written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant Nos. 2 and 4 in which in paragraph Nos. 15, 16 and 17 they stated about executing a sale deed bearing No. 6216 dated 23.06.1998 in favour of the father of the intervenors namely, Chandra Deo Dubey, with respect to Khata No. 74, Plot No. 324, area 4 decimals and handed over the possession to him over which they are residing after constructing a house. Learned counsel further submits that the intervenors have contended that by going through paragraph No. 16 of the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant Nos. 2 and 4, it would be evident that they have contended that they have executed sale deed no. 6215 in favour of the intervenors with respect to khata No. 74, Plot No. 334, area 28 decimal as well as with respect to Plot No. 372, area 16.5 decimal and have handed over the possession to them. Learned counsel further submits that it has further been contended on behalf of the intervenors that by going through paragraph No. 17 of the written statement filed by defendant no. 6 it would be evident that he executed sale deed No. 1848 dated 10.03.1997 as well as sale deed No. 8246 dated 04.08.1998, with respect to land situated in khata No. 74 Plot No. 334 area 4x3/4 decimals, and sold the land to the intervenors who were put in the possession long back. Learned counsel further submits that it has further been contended on behalf of the intervenors that the plaintiff has deliberately not made them parties in the suit. They have also contended that their father Chandra Deo Dubey was the necessary party to the suit. Thus, the intervenors made a prayer to add them as party defendant and also to direct the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner to allot their acquired property in their favour which has been mentioned in Schedule Ka of the intervention petition. Learned counsel further submits that a rejoinder was filed on 06.12.2016 to the petition of the intervenors. After hearing the parties the learned Subordinate Judge II, Bhabhua on 21.12.2016 allowed the prayer of the intervenors to the extent that learned Trial Court directed the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner to allot the acquired properties of the intervenors in their favour as detailed in Schedule-Ka of the intervention petition. This order has been challenged by the plaintiff /petitioner before this Court.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is not sustainable since the order
